Buckley Critique of Mount Vernon Statement Misses Point
The Mount Vernon Statement of political conservatives’ principles was bound to incite a good deal of comment, most of it hostile, given the general tenor of the U.S. press. Criticism from a right-of-center luminary such as Christopher Buckley is rather more significant, however, regardless of whom he voted for in the last election. Buckley’s stature as a satirical novelist and only child of modern conservative movement co-founder William F. Buckley means we must take seriously his scathing article on the matter at the Daily Beast.
Briefly summarized, “The Mount Vernon Statement: Constitutional Conservatism: A Statement for the 21st Century” (MVS) is a 537-word document arguing for a “recommitment” “to the ideas of the American Founding,” signed by a who’s who of U.S. conservative political and intellectual leaders.
Denouncing change done simply for change’s sake (an obvious slap at President Obama’s immensely effective campaign theme), the document calls instead for “a change consistent with the American ideal, … not movement away from but toward our founding principles. At this important time, we need a restatement of Constitutional conservatism grounded in the priceless principle of ordered liberty articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.”
Exhorting the right to “Quit Redefining Conservatism,” Buckley criticizes the MVS for being … too long: “a windy yadda-yadda about first principles and why are liberals wiping their arses with the Constitution.” Coming from the man who described President Obama’s boring, ultra-partisan, and rhetorically hollow State of the Union address as “one hell of a speech,” this criticism may not carry much credibility.
Undaunted, Buckley goes on to criticize the MVS as not being motivated by conservative policy goals but instead a simple animus toward Obama. He gives no evidence for this claim, instead promptly quitting the field of battle after discharging this projectile from his rhetorical popgun (although he promises to return). In addition, the motives behind the document are irrelevant: if its ideas are good, we should accept them, and if not, not. The anti-Obama claim is just an obvious ad hominem attack and merits only instant dismissal.
Buckley is certainly right, however, about the MVS being a rhetorically awkward document, one all too obviously written by a committee trying to accommodate a variety of perspectives. And he is right about the conservative movement often being too talky, pompous, and elderly. But that’s also true of liberals — and even of some people writing for the Daily Beast. These quibbles don’t have any bearing on the philosophical and strategic contentions in the document — which are of course what’s important about it.
Much worse than his concentration on irrelevant side elements, however, it is the things that Buckley gets quite wrong that make his critique so disappointing.
He’s dead wrong, for example, about there not being a need for conservatives to get down to first principles. Anyone who has any memory at all of the George W. Bush administration and the profligate Republican Congress must understand this. First principles are exactly what the right needs if it is to persuade people that the mistakes of the past decade were anomalous and don’t reflect what the movement is truly about and would do if it obtained political power.
Moreover, if Buckley believes that the answers to all of our problems are all to be found in conservative writings and political strategies of the past half-century — which is the thrust of his piece — he must explain why these things did not do the trick in the past, why people are still waiting for the conservative millennium to arrive.
The best response I’ve seen to date…from the family tree:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-02-22/the-buckley-family-feud/
…..He needs to stay away from the political arena, at least with his public writings. He lost his sense of reason in the fall of ’08 when he started describing why he’d vote for Obama. The reasons lacked any coherence and lacked a grasp of the danger of electing the most liberal Senator at a time when the govt had already grown far too large, and was taking far too much of peoples’ paychecks (ESP when state and local taxes are factored).
In short, Buckley lost his sense of reason, ‘big picture’ analysis, and everything else that is important when electing a President in a time of crisis. True to our (fiscal conservatives) predictions, Obama has done and wants to do, exactly the opposite of what is really necessary to bring our economy back to prosperity. The opposite. It’s insulting that Buckley didn’t see that and now wants to lecture us. He’s an arrogant know-it-all, who can’t even see the crux of the problem.
What’s wrong with having animus for Obama?
Buckley was right about one thing. The writing of the statement is awful, even cringe inducing.
Note that the ideas are fine, but the way they are expressed was not.
“Conservatives conserving conservatism”? “Natural fusion”? Yuck.
I don’t read novels and therefore cannot comment on Christopher Buckley’s ability as a fiction writer. His political commentary, however, is incredibly shallow. He is obviously a very poorly read individual. Nobody would be taking him seriously if he were not the son of a very famous father. It’s sad but fair to say that Christopher is living off the latter’s well earned reputation. And no, I am not being vicious and mean spirited. The younger Buckley often sounds like an immature youngster who has yet to enter the third year of college. It is difficult to believe that he is nearly sixty years old. Christopher normally reminds me of a juvenile Daily Kos kid.
Why did Bill and Pat Buckley send their only child to a second rate university like Yale? His father knew that it offered a crummy education. He wrote. After all, his insightful work, God and Man at Yale, in the early 1950s. What kept the parents from sending Christopher to a superior place like Hillsdale College?
A fine example of intellect vaguely disassociated from morality.
Buckley has the lineage, so he’s convinced that he can out-intellect everyone. But it isn’t smartness we need in America, it’s AMERICAN-NESS.
intellectual leadership from Marx gave us Lenin and then Stalin.
Buckley cannot seem to see the value of American-ness as it has been expressed through the constitution and American traditions, and when people speak for it and defend it, he doesn’t GET it.
Like the rest of the republican intellectuals.
As I always say, I’d rather be led by a GOOD AND DECENT man than by the smartest man in the room.
Intellectualism is vanity in the end. Life isn’t complicated. Do the right thing. The Mt. Vernon statement could have been much shorter, i.e. –
“I will obey, protect and defend the Constitution of the USA”.
Then again, lots of politicians already take that oath and then proceed to break it on their first day.
So I can’t blame them for wanting pols to sign Mt. Vernon.
“Buckley’s stature as a satirical novelist and only child of modern conservative movement co-founder William F. Buckley means we must take seriously his scathing article on the matter at the Daily Beast.”
Why? Would one give any additional credence to Bill Gates’ progeny on issues of computer software, simply because of parentage? What has his experience as a fiction writer to do with any alleged skills as a political philosopher or analyst?
He voted for Obama, then later regretted it. Not a good recommendation for any credentials in the field.
This guy has no credibility.He aspires to a job as conservative house lackey to the Obama white house,while calling himself a conservative.He’s a useless irrelevance!
“And he is right about the conservative movement often being too talky, pompous, and elderly.”
Narcissus Dexter may love itself with militant extremism, Dr. Bones, but obviously that implies nothing at all about its self-knowledge.
The real trouble with Master Narky is that it is too talky, too pompous, and … exceedin’ly wet behind the ears — it’s a whippersnapper, a _señorito_, a wombscholar and a downdumbee.
Healthy days.
Mr. Karnick, you hit the nail on the head with your call for activism in the realm of culture. This has been the Achilles’ heel of the Conservative movement for decades. I attended the CPAC conference in Washington, and can attest to the fact that cultural issues were largely absent from the proceedings.
We must duplicate, in reverse, the Left’s “long march through the institutions.” It is going to be a long and arduous task. One can only hope that we will be aided by the defection of artistic types and “intellectuals” who become bored with the mindlessness and nihilistic content of their daily fare.
“Master satirist?” The only thing Christopher Buckley has ever mastered is being a pale imitation of his father, and of disgracing the latter’s legacy. To hell with him.
Buckley’s not a master satirist; he’s a horse’s ass.
The discreet father’s love exhibited by the sainted WFB is the only reason that this apostasy was hidden until after the parents’ deaths. There was a simmering issue there for several years, precipitated by Christopher’s juvenile response to his midlife crisis, which saw him leaving his wife, Lucy, and his kids, and taking up with (more than one) women half his age.
That same self-absorbed narcissism prompted ol’ Christo to look for another self-absorbed, arrogant, Ivy League-schooled (not “educated”) person to support in the presidential election. And we know how well that worked out- we refer to this group as the Kmiec-Buckley-Leach Puerility Society. When your dad is a legend, and you got your first job at Forbes because your dad is a legend, you sometimes kind of deal with a bit of a complex.
Are there disagreements in the big conservative tent? Sure- in three major areas: libertarians vs. social cons, isolationists vs. GWOT/WWIV neocons, and anti-government vs. “you won’t sink the aircraft carrier so try to steer it instead” pragmatists. We can argue all day about who is right about what specific issue. But in this world of imperfect choices, it will always be quite obvious who is the more conservative candidate. Bush v. Kerry? C’mon, get serious. McCain v. Obama? Are you kidding? No matter what McCain has done or said in two decades in the Senate, that choice is a no-brainer. Unless you are, apparently, Christopher Buckley, whose no-brain appears to have atrophied.
Having the same last name does NOT mean we need to take his criticism seriously and referring to this clown as right of center is an insult to those right of center.
Essays or fiction, Buckley is an appallingly bad writer. Fey, twee. Too cute by half. He writes like the superstar of his High School Advanced Placement English course.
I mean, look at that kicky little portrait — that’s exactly how he writes.
Buckley’s wife may have had an affair with the gardener.
15 S. Weasel
I hadn’t noticed the portrait, but gawd you are SO right! That pic says far better than any of our well-spoken critics just exactly what is wrong with CB.
It is to laugh, and to try not to spit diet coke from the nose….
I remember when WFB wrote a column tearing Ron Reagan, Junior a new one. Who will do the same for WFB’s son?
Vibiana, I suggest you check out truly Master Satirist, Iowahawk’s work…
As a Conservative, I Must Say I Do Quite Like the Cut of this Obama Fellow’s Jib
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2008/10/as-a-conservative-i-must-say-i-do-quite-like-the-cut-of-this-obama-fellows-jib.html
Compare IowaHawk’s satirical piece with Christopher Buckley’s latest offering via the Daily Beast…
One Hell of a Speech
by Christopher Buckley
Obama didn’t deliver a speech so much as a symphony, calling for nukes and zapping the Supremes; thanks for the performance, Mr. President.
It is hard, indeed almost impossible, not to like Mr. Obama. In recent weeks, I’ve tried—tried my best. But Wednesday night he made it virtually impossible. Even discounting the perhaps 40 percent of the speech that consisted of the usual bromides and platitudes, even the most hardened skeptic must admit—the son of gun gives one hell of a speech.
…
Tonight Mr. Obama proved—once again—that he hears the American music and can play it like a maestro. As well as Ronald Reagan. Both presidents had—have—have music in their souls. The other people in the room where I watched the speech were in tears by the end—the kind that stream down the face. I managed to hold those back. But I could not hold back my admiration at the performance, in particular of Mr. Obama’s deep humanity, as evinced by his profound, almost Lincolnesque humor. Oh dear, are tears streaming down my face, one way or the other?
He proved himself capable, too, of drama, as when he (figuratively) pointed a finger at the Supremes, sitting in their courtly robes directly in front of him, hands demurely folded, and accused them (in my opinion, unjustly, to say nothing of injudiciously) of allowing “foreign enemies” to influence our elections. I had been under the impression that it was called “free speech.” But never mind. It was an electrifying moment. Thank you, Mr. President.
An electrifying evening, all in all. Well done. And yes, God bless the United States of America.