THE PROPERTY OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE
TBE RHZTORLC OP IfCSUIAM F. BUCKIXY J R e
AND THE UNf =AL AMERICAN AUDXEl?CE
A 4 thoala submitted to the Facul ty of the University Of Doh\v,~are in p a r t i a l f u l f i l b e n t of tho requirements for tho d o p s s of Uastsr of A r t s in Communica.tion,
copyright Edward C. Appel 1976
THE RHXTORIC OF WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY, JR. AND
THE UNIVERSAL AMERICAN AUDIENCE
BY EDWARD C. APPEL
Approved: ' .'
P r o f e s s o r i n charge o f t h e k s on b e h a l f of the Advisory Committee
Approved:
Approved: Dean' o f t h e Col lege Studies
PREFACE
Thanks a r e extended t o Dr. Kalthon Anapol,
Professor E d m n 2 Glenn, and Dr. Ray Ksesey for their help
in the preparation of th is thesis, Especially does the
author acknowledge his indebtedness to Psofsssor Glenn,
~vhose work in Snte~cuStural c o a ~ u n i c a t l o n s has fashioned
the toolti f o r tho approach th fs study has taken. Without
his lnstrmctis~ only a qu i t e d i f fe ren t analysis could have
been attempted,
Purposes and Procedures . . . . . . . . . . Irnporkanee of Study . . . . . . . 4 . . Revfow sf the Efterature , . , . . . . . .
2. AN ANEiEY2,'IS OF THE PERSUASIVE STflATEGEIG I N T E RIIZTORIC OF' WlLUAEli F BUCKIm e
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The ra:+.iehns of Persuasionfi as elstokfcally
Fori7uPated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brcad Approach~o: be-emption of
Rhotor icul lg- Strategfa Ground . e . . . Some OfTensive Rhetorioal hnsuvars . . . .
The Er.tu170 of the U n i v e r s ~ B Arnerf aan A I ~ ~ I C I ~ L C C 4 4 e e c s 0 o
4. AW INTE3PEETATIVX ANALYSIS e *
iv
Chapter
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Associative-Emottonal Element in the
Buekkey Rhatorlc . . . . . . . . . . . . Tho A s ssciative-Relational-Undetached Strain in tho 3uckley Rhetorio . . . . .
Tks TJrriaersal Orientation in the Buckley R h e t ~ r l c * * r . e . . e e . . . . . e .
Conclusion . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . .
I N TRODUCTI ON
PURPOSES AN33 PROCEDURES
I n this study of the r h e t o r i c o f William F'. Buckley
Jr., t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r w i l l a t t empt the fol lnwing:
(1) To e s say what Karlyn Kohrs Campbell has c a l l e d
i n h e r book C r i t i q u e s - of Contemporary Rhetor ic t h o f i r s t
s t a g e of r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m , s " d e s c r i p t i v e a n a l y s i s ."l
An a t tempt w i l l be made ''tc d i s cove r t h e unique and d e -
f i n i n g c h a r a c t a r i s t i c s " t h a t make Buckleyt s d i scour se
~ d s t i i n c t i v e . " ~ I n t h i s e f f o r t t h e concern w i l l be s o l e l y
with the conse rva t ive1 s "choice of persuas ive s t a ~ t e ~ i e s , " ~
t h e broader ploys by which one moves his audience t o be-
l i e v e and t o a c t . A s Campbell suggests, an e f f o r t w i l l be
made t o "support each l a b e l w i t h o ~ i d e n c s , " ~
( 2 ) To accomplish what Campbell c a l l s t h e nex t
s t e p i n t h e c r i t i c a l process , an a p p r a i s a l of the " r e -
l a t i o n " of Buckleyqs r h e t o r i c n t ~ I t s m i l i e u , "5 An at tempt
w i l l be made t o d i s c l o s e " the Intrinsic elements-the
e x t e r n a l l i m i t a t i o n s , c o n s t r a i n t s , o r In f luences on t h e
rhetoricians c choiceslr:6
1
The elements of the r h e t o r i c a l p r o b l e ~ rep resen t t h e o b s t a c l e s t h a t prevent t h e author from accomplishing h l s purposa immediately and e a s i l y . These elements include the audience, t h e h i s t o r i c a l - c u l t u r a l context , o t h e r persuasive fo rces , and t h e r h e t o r i c i a n himself . . . . A t t h i s s tago the c r i t i c is concernecl with d i s - covering u s much information a s poss ib le about t h e persons usua l ly exposed t o t h e d i s c o ~ s e . ~
Such a concern w i l l be expressed and th i s query w i l l be
r a i sed : i n tho absence of p o s i t i v e empir ica l da ta , i s i t
l i k e l y t h a t li:'illfam F. Buckley, given the n a t u r e of h i s
r h e t o r i c , nurtured i n an Anglo-American c u l t u r e
t o b e l i e f and t o ac t ion , given t h e way they n a t u r a l l y
develop?
As he undertakes t o answer th is ques t ion , the
i n v e s t i g a t o r w i l l commence t h e following:
( 3 ) To cons t ruc t what Campbell desc r ibes as t h e
f i n a l s t a g e of rhetorical c r i t i c i s m , an " I n t e r p r e t a t i v e
a n a l y s i s .''l She asks t h i s quest ion:
. . . Does the r h e t o r i c i a n suggest c r i t e r i a f o r judging h i s work? Frequently the au thors of persuasive d i s - courses suggest s tandards f o r eva lua t ion , which a r e inherent i n s ta tements of t h e l r b e l i e f s about t h e proper a n a l y s i s of an i s s u e and the purpose of t h e i r d i scourses , This quest ion s u g p s t s the c r i t i c should t ake t h e r h e t o r i c i a n "on h i s ovm terms."9
In ta rp ro ta t iveSy , Suckloy w i l l b e taken Pion his own terms,"
The mel;hodology used utffll be t o l e t t h e polercicist s e t t h e
standards by which t h e observer is t o judge h i m . S p e c i f i -
c a l l y th i s Buckley c r i t e r i o n w i l l be appl ied:
t h a t and t he o t h e r conserva t i v o
t h e o r i s t s a t Xat ional Revilsr~ a r e t h e peoplet s scho la r s ,
i n con t ras t t o impract ica l and uncomprehending l i b e r a l
" abs t r ac t i on i s t s , " who do n o t understand the nature , needs,
and a sp i r a t i ons of' t h e American c i t i z e n . Accordingly, t he
inves t iga to r will examine the oxtent t o which tho author ' s
r he to r i o i s i n consonance w i t h , o r r e f l e c t i v e of , the
American charac ter .
In e f f e c t , Buckley w i l l judge h imsel f ,
SCOPE OF STUIX
Rcprosentative samples of a l l of Buckleyts rhe to r -
i c a l works-his books, h i s a r t i c l e s , h i s speeches, h i s
t e l e v i s i o n discussions-will be assayed as t o t h e i r l i k e l y
impact on, a n d t h e i r patent r e l a t i o n s h i p t o , the un ive rsa l
American audience. The conuept of the un ive rsa l American
audience i s a v a r i a t i o n on the concept of the universa l
audience a s doveloped by Chaim Perelman in his volume - The
N e w Rhetoric .lo - The un ive rsa l American audience is comprised
p o t e n t i a l l y of a l l Americar~ adu l t s . That Buckley appears
t o be addressing Americans in general i s i n d f c a t e d by t h e
f a c t that he Ss the second most widely published newspaper
columnist i n the country, newspapers being the common denom-
I na to r of j ouma l i sn ; by the f a c t t h a t h i s t e l ev i s i on pro-
gram has appeared o n both c o m e r c i a 1 and public s t a t i o n s i n
a l l p a r t s of Asnorica; by t h e f a c t t h a t on h i s broadcast he
irlterviems moderates, l i b e r a l s , and r a d i c a l s , as well a s
conservatives; and by t h e f a c t t h a t , were he addressing
conservat ives only, he could do so r a t h e r e f f e c t i v e l y
wr i t ing for America's fo remos t r ight-wing journal , h i s own
Nat iona l Review.
Perelman has l a i d t h e g r e a t e s t poss ib le s t r e s s on
t h e need f o r the rhe to r t o understand h i s audience and t o
"adapt himself" t o it.'' I n f a c t , he has defined argu-
mentat ion a s e s s e n t i a l l y "a funct ion of t h e audience being
addraasedet112 He has suggested t h a t ". . . w e m i # t char-
a c t e r i z e each speaker by the image he himself holds of tho
univerval audfence t h a t he i s t r y i n g t o win over t o h i s
vier";13 t h a t , i n add i t ion , ". . . each C U ~ P U P ~ . . . has
i t s own conception of the u n i v e r s a l audience."14 He has
of fered i n the next sentence that 'the s tudy of these
v a r i a t i o n s would be very i n s t r u c t i v e , . . . . "I5 There-
f o r e , t h i s inqui ry w i l l seek t o discover the s i m i l a r i t i e s
and d f s s i m f larities between the conception of what
Americans are l i k e implied i n Buckley's r h e t o r i c , and the
conception Amaricaos have of themselves inherent i n how
they a c t .
IMPORTANCE OF STUDY
lillfnm P. Suckley Jr. is , i f not the g ~ e a t e s t ,
then the most o.mnPpresent and protean, conservat ive
5
p r s u a d s r in the United S t a t e s today. H e I s , f i r s t , t h e
e d i t o r of Americav s most i n f l u e n t i a l conserva t ive magazine,
Nat ione l Review. For i t , he has h i n s e l f w r i t t e n number-
less a r t i c l e s , commentaries, and "asides ." Buckley is
a l s o t h e au thor o f a thrice-a-week syndicated newspaper
column which appears n a t i o n a l l y i n 348 journals .16 Hs i s
an incessant c o n t r i b u t o r t o such d i s p a r a t e magazines a s
Harper's, Playboy, and - TV Guide, H i s books a r e many, A
new one seems t o make i t s appearance y e a r l y w i t h the regu-
l a r i t y of the seasons, The c o n s e r v a t i v e ' s weekly t e l e -
v i s i o n program, FfrSng Line, h a s been making i ts mark on
the country f o r almost a decade and h a s been f o r t h e p a s t
s e v e r a l years a s t a p l e of t h e pub l i c network, Since the
1950'8 the l e c t u r e c i r c u i t has made s t r i n g e n t demands on
h i s t ime, Las t but n o t least, Buckley has himself d i r e c t l y
en tered the p o l i t i c a l arena, running f o r Mayor of N e w York
in 1965, heading the United S t a t e s Information Agency dur-
i ng the f i ~ s t ?\! ixon Adminis t ra t ion, and opera t ing wi th in
the comolPs of the Republican par ty" r i g h t wing. With
the p o s s f b l o e x e s p t i o n of Senator Barmj Goldwater, h i s is
the Foremost v a t e e of American conservat ism,
The~ePore, a s tudy of Buckleyfs r h e t o r i c is impor-
t a n t , Buckley i s , i n his own r i g h t , a pre-eminent con-
s e r v a t i v e voice. his a r t i c u l a t i o n s f a s h i o n a s i g n i f i c a n t
p a r t of t h e imago contemporary conservat ism p r o j e c t s t o
6
the Amorican c l t f z o n . X i s approach t o the problems of
persuasion must be assumed i n f l u e n t i a l in the work of
other conservative polemicis ts . Because the subjec t of t h i s study i s not only the
r h e t o r i c o f the polemicist i n question, but a l s o the nature
of the audience Ire addresses, of importance too i s whatevor
l l g h t can b e shed on how Americans a r e l i k e l y t o respond t o
suasive a p p e a l s , Audience ana lya fs was a primary fea tu re
of r h e t o r i c a l theory a s e a r l y a s Ar i s t o t l o , whose monumen-
t a l Rhetoric r e n d s as i f i t were t he world's f i r s t g rea t
t r e a t i s e on psychology. Rhetoric founded on
assumptions and values not shared by the l i s t e n e r s t o whom
i t is a d d r e s s e d i s l i k e l y t o be i ne f f ec t i ve . Contemporary
American speakers and t h e i r c r i t i c s a r e working i n the d a ~ k
t o t h e extent t h a t they do not h o w the contemporary
American c i t i z e n ,
REVIEW THE
One Coctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n has so far focused, i n
p a r t , on Buckleyq s rhe to r i o , Thomas F. Mades, i n h i s mno-
g?aph BCorioSanus a n d God: A Burkeian View of William
Buckley , '' a p p l i e d Kenneth Burke 's dramat f st i c theory t o a
speech the publicist del ivered a t S t . John's Universi ty ,
New York C l t y , i n 1962.17 llTr. Mader found t h a t i n the
spsoch, e n t i t l e d "The True BIeaning of tho Right the
7
ora to r t r i e d t o achieve i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with h i s audience
by manipulation o f t h e standard Burkeian concepts of
hierarchy, g u i l t , victimage, and redemption; t h a t he used
severa l modes of appeal; t h a t he made dramatic use of
t h e s i s and a n t i t h e s i s ; and t h a t the a d d r e s s s a t i s f i e d
?rofessor Burkess d e f i n i t i o n of eloquence by i t s synthesis
of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and persuasion through symbolic and
e s B formal cha, g
However remarkable M r . Nader found the Buckley
speech a s e r i s t i c l i t e r a t u r e , though, the empir ical e l e -
ment croated a d i f f e r en t impression. The i nves t i ga to r
ascer ta ined and analysed the r e ac t i on of audience members
and concluded that the speech. was a f a i l u r e i n terms of
Buckleyts purposes and t he audience 's expectat ions.
Buckley d i d not persuade; b u t , concluded Nader, h i s per-
formance had i t s compensations, both f o r the audience and
f o r Buckley.
Two master's theses have appeared on this subjec t .
James T, arooks Jr ., In an analysis of seven Buckley
speeches t t t l a d ''A Study of William F. Buckley Jr. 's Theory
and PsactSce cf ?ersuasion," rornarked, among other things,
Buckleyfs penchant fop deductive argumentation from cer ta ln
' l t ru ths t t personal ly i n t u i t e d .I8 Brooks maintained a l s o
that the conservative i s incons is tent , owing t o h is claim
on t he one hand t h a t he does 'not a l t e r speeches t o s u i t
the values and fancies of audiences," lg end h i s t ranspar-
ent ~ a n i p u l a t ion of language anc! arrangement t o achievcs
effect, on the o ther . The i n v e s t i g a t o r concluded, though,
t h a t "as a persuadsr Buckley d o e s n ' t seem t o be accom-
p l i sh ing very much a t a11.fr20 How Brooks a r r i v e d a t this
judgment i s n o t c l e a r . He of fered no induct ive o r deduo-
t l v e proof a s t o why Buckley has so f a i l e d .
In "A Rhetor ica l Analysis of Three Speeches hy
\Villiam Frank Buckleg Jr.," Carolyn Mae Ory asse r t ed tha t
the polemicist r e l i e s heav i ly i n h is speeches, on e t h i c a l
and srnotlonal proof, but conspicuously s t i n t s on l o g i c a l
proof, t h a t i s , l o g i c a l proof t h a t goes beyond mere num-I
bered o r l e t t e r e d points.21 H i s speeches, Miss Ory
claimed, a r e devoid of documentary evidence; but she found
hlm vigorous in h i s at tempt t o compensate f o r this
d e f l c iency throu* devices t h a t e s t a b l i s h sagaci ty . 0ry
concluded t h a t , though charming, magnetic, and d e f t i n de-
l i v e r y , Buckloy does not persuade, o r even e f f e c t i v e l y
comunfcate h i s more subs tan t ive proposi t ions, because his
audiences do n o t understand him,
BUCXUY S BACXGROUND
Buckley came by his conservat ive predispos i t ions ,
i t would seem, allnost g e n e t i c a l l y , His f a t h e r , William F,
Buckley Sr. , amassed a considerable fo r tune through
9
specula t i03 in oil, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n Central and South
America 22 So aggressive s c a p i t a l i s t was he t h a t the
expel led h i m from Mexico during t h a t countsygs
revolut ion , This ous te r i n s t i l l e d i n t he e l d e r Buckley,
and psrbaps a l s o his chi ldren , "a l i f e - long d i s t r u s t of
revolut ionary and soc ia l t i s t governments, 'I according t o
h is daughter ~ r i s c l l l a 0 2 3
The youag VJillfam Buckley matr iculatad a t excellent
preparatory schools be tween his family' s frequent t r a v a l s ,
Anong them were tho YLillb~look School i n New York and
Beaumont in England. Af ter graduat ing from Millbrook i n
1944, Y3uckley b r i e f l y at tended the Universi ty of DIexico,
then entered riorld Bar I1 w i t h army in te l l igence .24
Buckleyt s celebrated career a t Yale, 1946-1950,
followed t he r ea f t e r . The conservat ive made the prest igious
cluba, toured with the debatting team, chaired the Daily
N e w s , s tung t h e campus w i t h c r i s p e d i t o r i a l s , and graduated
Cum Laude. O f s pec i a l no te w a s his s e l e c t i o n a s A l u m n i Day -- o r a t o r h i s sen io r year, Conspf cuously honored, Buckley
composed the speech, but d i d not de l iver i t , refus ing t o
r ev i se the t a l k a t the bidding of Pres ident Seymour. In
the address , the student indfctod the un ive r s i t y f o r f a f l -
u r e t o inculca te the r e l i $ lous and p o l i t i c a l p r inc ip les on
which the school - w s founded; t o which tit s t i l l gave, on
occasion, devout l i p se rv ice ; and by which t h e alumnf, one
10
would presume, okdered t h e i r l f v e s ; indeed, not only f o r
do re l i c t i on en regard t o the preservat ion of these idea l s ,
but a l so f o r acquiescence i n t he e f f o r t of so many fns t ruc -
tors t o supplant the precepts w i t h atheism and social ism,
tho s tudent speaker claimed, The speech, together w i t h
much of the ma t e r i a l informing h i s newspaper e d i t o r i a l s ,
germinated i n t o God and Man a t Yale, which Suckley pub-
l i shed one y e a r a f t e r graduation.25
Nith Sod and Fan a t Yale Buckley exploded onto t h e ----- na t i ona l scene. EIe soon was debat ing t h e i s sues raissi3 i n
the book with academicians across the country. Then ho
became a p e r f p a t e t f o l e c t u r e r i n h i s own right. I n 1955 he
founded National Rsview, assembling for it an impressive
cas t of conservative scho la r s , In 1962 the e d i t o r ' s "On
the Right" column, which appeared i n each fo r t n igh t l y
i s sue of t h e magazine, was syndicated na t i ona l l y f o r once-
a-week nowspnpsr publ ica t ion . Since 1964 Buckley has been
wr i t i ng three a r t i c l e s a week f o r t he Washington S t a r syn-
dica t ion . H i s con~nentarfes appear i n more than th ree hun-
d r e d jouma9s .26
Bucklay7s Qaree r a s t e l e v i s i o n hos t , in terv iewer ,
and gadfly began i n 3.967, Pirinl;f Line was f f r s t d i s t r i b -
uted through independent s jmdicat lon t o approximately
n ine ty s t a t i o n s , SPnce 1972 t h e one-how t a l k program has
been shown once a week on the more than two hundred out le t s
11
of the P u b l i c Broadcasting 'Systsm.27
During these busy years of editing, lecturing,
broadcasting, and newspaper and magazine writing, Buckley
has found tfme t o publish eleven more books, only four of
which a r e compilations o f h i s articles.28 No wonder James
J. KilpatrPck, hlrnself a renouned polemicis t , a s s e r t s that
t'on o u r side of the political fence, Buckley . . . is Numerg - Uno . f'29
AN ANALYSIS OF THE PERSUASIVE STRATEGEh-3
THE RHETORIC OF W I L L I A M
Fe BUCKLEY
IWTRODUCTI ON
What tz)e the "means of persuasiontt Willfam F.
Buckley tends t o use with r egu l a r i t y?
I n t h i s chapter t be r e w i l l , f i r s t of a l l , be a
treatment of the means of persuasion a s h f s to rPca l ly cate-
gorized by rhe to r i c ians . Included i n t h i s preface w i l l be
a b r i e f examination of the l i k e l y impact of these rhe tor -
i c a l elements on American audiences. I n Chapter 3 t h i s
approach w i l l be daveloped i n g r e a t e r depth.
N e x t the re w f l l appear a d issec t fon of the broad
approaches and appeals whfch charac te r i ze the rhe to r i c of
William F, 8uck lsy , those by which the author seeks t o pre-
empt r h e t o r i c a l l y s t ~ a t e g i c ground.
PinnlPg, thore w f l l b e an analys is of t h e spec i f i -
c a l l y of fens ive r h e t o r f c a l maneuvers t y p i c a l o f Buckleyrs
books, a r t i c l e s , and t e l e v i s i o n discussions.
12
TEE "I\'ZAWS OF PERSUASION" AS HESTORICP.LLY F O R B W T E D
A r i s t o t l e discerned t h r e e Rzndamantal means by
which a spcechaaker can In2uce t r u s t and inf luence ac t lon .
H e can use ethos, pathos, and logos. T r a d i t i o n a l l y , e thos
i s def ined a s the r h e t o r ' s charac ter , moral standing, o r
r epu ta t ion , and t h e good w i l l he can e l i c i t from the audl-
ence .l A f e a t u r e some contemporary rhetoricians add t o
the conuept i s sagac i ty o r perceived expertness . 2
Q u i n t i l i a n so valusd this r h e t o r i c a l element he made i t the
cornerstone of h i s system: t t . . . the p e r f e c t o r a t o r . . . cannot e x i s t unless he I s above a l l a good man."3 Ethos
can encompass the invoking of moral sanct ions a s p a r t of
one 's appeal, bui ld ing up oneself a t the expense of sup-
posed ly immoral opponents, and showing o f f one 's fami l i -
arLty with every d e t a i l t h a t r e l a t e s t o t h e i s sue . But,
i n terms of cogency, such maneuvers are secondary t o the
q u a l i t y of oneQ s p r i o r "image. The commonplaoe, 'What
you do makes Y O much no i se I c a n t t h e a r what you're say iq , "
s t r i k e s f a i r l y c lose t o the t r u t h .
I f damaged, though, ons t s e thos can be repai red ,
i n p a r t , by stepling conduct and t h e passage o f time, and
t o some extent by horn one d e l i v e r s t h e speech. Further-
more, one's r e c t i t u d e o r depravi ty does not impinge on
one's reader and one ' s a u d i t o r w i t h equiva lent force . A n
14
author I.s somcv~hbt detached from h i s public; communication
by papor and pr in t is a more abs t r ac t , leas r e l a t i o n a l com-
ing together. Hence f o r the penman, v i r t u e is important,
but not so Sn?nmzdintsly imperbative, The speechmaker, on the
o ther hand, conjures up feelings and assoc ia t ions fa7 more
powerfully. Euddled together i n a bedimmed l e c tu r e h a l l ,
audience and o r a t o r i n t e r a c t in tense ly .
Ethos is a t l e a s t a s i l o n t pa r t of every polemic,
however, even j ou rna l i s t i c . The propagandist can exp lo i t
it to advantage OP l i v e w i t h i t r e l u c t a n t l y . He cannot
e n t i r e l y escape i t . People "cons Pder the source
Somewhat more manageable a r e pathos and logos.
Pathos denotes that q u a l i t y which moves us t o p i t y o r so r -
row o r , In the termb broader sense, any o the r s t rong
emotion. Often i t suggests more the a r t o r t r i c k one em-
ploys to achieve the e f f e c t r a t h e r than t he r e s u l t i t s e l f ,
Here again, the o r a to r has an advantage, i f it i s an i m -
passioned response one i s a f t e r . He can recount the most
poignant t a l e s and anecdotes, o r drape about himself the
most sentirriental sysnbols of his cu l t u r e , and he can a l so
dramatize them with voiae and gesture. E i t he r way, pathos
appears a t e l l i n g node of persuasion, Men, even i n t e l l i -
gent ones, think w i t h t h e i r glands more than they would
care to admit.
Logos, o r logic , would be, one would suspect,
15
~ m e r i c a ' s bas ic r h e t o r i c a l resource. The i n t e l l e c t u a l
he r i t age of the United S t a t e s 18 Pro tes tan t ; i t s po l f t i c s ,
democratic; i ts tompcrament, d ry . I n America, f ee l ing
would defer to reason, one might think, a t l e a s t t o an ex-
t e n t unhown i n author i ta rSan countr ies o r among v o l a t i l e
populations . But American cu l t u r e ks not t h a t s h p l e .
Socia l countsreurrents erode to some extent the appeal of
sy l l og i s~n an3 ent'ngnnsme . Americana a r e p r ac t i c a l , non-
doc t r ina i re , caoe-oriented, i n con t ras t to , say, the Freneh,
who a r e a n a l y t i c a l , word-obsessed, universal-or iented. I n
France, thoughts and governmental Departments a l i k e are
p r ec i s s l y arranged, nsn t ly subdivided. The i d e a of somo-
one's ge t t i ng h i s mail and water from a nearby c i t y ; h i s
zoning Paws, f i r e protec t ion , and vot ing f a c i l i t i e s from
h i s township; and his constabulary ~ e r v i c e s from the s t a t e
is fore ign t o the Ga l l i c mind, Like the New York subway--
which vicaves along according t o population disbursement,
not symmotrieal dosign-it does no t nmaks sense." One
could i l l u s t r a t e f u r t he r . There i s so much in American
soc i e ty t h a t seems " i s r a t i o n a l " and t t incons ls tent ." L~ericans codify l e f t y p r inc ip les , then bend them to nake
them P i t r e a l f t y . '"ongress s h a l l make no law . . . abridging t h o frcedom of speech . . . . "4 Congress makes
such laws myway, wlth the h e l p of t h e Supreme Court.
'30 s t a t e s h a l l . . . deprive any person of l i f e , l i b e r t y ,
16
o r proper ty , tvfthout due process of law . . . . t15 s t a t e s
can, and do, i f the c i t i z e n is "mental ly ill," s o t h a t
community l i f e mag cont inue more smoothly. (Although now
the committed person must be t r e a t e d . ) Americans always
ask, * ' + l k l l i t work? W i l l it enhance func t ion?" Americans
ask only as nn a f t e ~ t h o u g h t , "Is i t l o g i c a l l y w a t e r t i g h t ? "
So as a c u l t u r e , t h e people of t h e United S t a t e s
a r e ambivalent toward logos and wary of pathos, a t l e a s t i n
r e l a t i o n t o tho r e s t of t h e world. Even e thos , d e s p i t e i t s
power, Arnericar~s csn a b s t r a c t from tbs occasion as no
o t h e r people can, A h o s t subconsciously , Americans ask ,
what has r epu ta5 ion t o do w i t h the immediate croncerm? The
speaker and the w r i t e r are p l ay ing a s p e c i a l i z e d r o l e .
Anericans judge them on t h e b a s i s of t h e i r p resen t per-
formance of t h a t r o l e i n a manner q u i t e unexampled.
I n ahopt , A m o r i cans- l ike o t h e r Anglo-Saxons, bu t
more so-are not; e a s i l y moved by speaking o r w r i t i n g pe r
s e , The newspapers may t e l l them t o vo te one way. They
m&,y vote another*
T.7hat does Buckley do, then, t o convince this f a i r l y
obdurate acdiencs?
BROA2 AE?ZOACliES: PRE-EMPTiON OF KIE'f 02ICALLY STRATEGIC GROUND
To bogin w i t h , t h e r e a r e t hose maneuvers by wbicln
~ u c k l o y pre-ampts r h e t o r i c a l l y s t r a t e g i c ground. Be
s e i z e s the advantage, f irst of a l l , by invoking the sanc-
t i o n s of ro l ig fon . That th is conservat ive be l ieves
Chr is t ian values undergird h i s p o l i t i c a l i d e a l s , and t h a t
r e l i g i o u s imagery informs his work, are p la in . There i s ,
f o r example, th i s passage i n which the author weds be l i e f
i n God and the d iv ine sanc t ion t o an i n d i v i d u a l i s t , and
hence conssrva t ive, v iev~ of l i f e :
I f God sxlsts, a given Ran cannot be a Communist f o r so long a s ( a ) he recognizes t h a t God e x i s t s and ( b ) he u n d e r s t a n d s Cornnunism to h e founded on a neza- t i o n of Sod. But i f God does not e x i s t , i t follows t h a t Corn~iunism o r some s u i t a b l e va r i an t of i t is the s e c u l a r i s t de r iva t ion of a nonbolfef i n (God, which, having the s f f o c t of donying the indiv idual a divine spa rk , tends n a t u r a l l y t o advance the claims of the c o l l e ~ t k v i t y over those of t h e indiv idual , a 3 t h e f o c a l poin t o f s o c i a l e f f o r t .6
a l s o i d e n t i f i e d ind i rec t lg a s t h a t view
current l y "not f ashlonable, " appears as the only value
systen founded on "n r e l i g i o u s basef':
Vhat is n o t fashionable a r e some of those c e r t i t u d e s and i n t u i t i o n s that; most of us here i n this room aim t o scrve-such o e r t l t u d e s a s t h a t there i s a r e l i - gious bass i n l l f e , and t h e r e f o r e a t r a n s h i s t o r i c ~ l meaning t o %he hman experfonce.7
i s not always r o u n d a b c ~ t i n h i s exclusf on
o f l i b o r a l s fr40m dfofne favcr . Here he pointedly repre-
sents them as 'cslng ou t s ide of Heavenly grace o r s p i r i t u -
a l l y uncorriprehend ing:
God alone Imows, and I am s u r e H e i s despondent over i t , what e x a c t l y i s going on i n the mind of bl r .
Averell 2arrircan, in 15?oscow th3.s week a s p r i n c i p a 1 reagent of s a i d demarche . . . . 8
EuC he f ~ z t h z r John Ifiurrayj 13 never so s p e c i f i c a s t o dent:^; himsalf with any cur rent movement, except of courae She C h i s t P a n movement, and many Libera l s will read this book w i t h incomplete m d e r s t a n d l n ~ , I l i k e t o f o o l , hovering over a few animadversions aga ins t r i @ ~ t - w i n g s t e reo types , and h a s t i l y drawing the conclusion t h a t he is r e a l l y on t h e i r s i d e . 9
The n a t u r a l antithesis botrreen t h e l i b e r a l i n f i d e l and t 5 s
conservat ive b e l i e v e r tu rns up aga in and again i n Buckleg's
polemics. Af te r a s s a i l i n g too-xuch-this-vorldly "l?ibelgal
egalitarian dogma'' and a s s e r t i n g that ft nay b e destroyed
b y the r a c i a l views of a Professor Shockley, the colum.nist
nea t ly d r a m a Xna o n the other side of which one i s ,
os t ens ib ly , n o t likely t o f 2nd l i b e r a l s o r o g a l l t a r i a n s :
Szt this vrould not be the case f o r those whose values ape Ch i s t i an , and whose b e l i e f i s i n meta- physical esua l i ty .lo
The squating of conservative a t t i t u d e s wfth
Chris t f a n f i d e l i t y would appear a p o t e n t i a l l y e f f e c t i v e
expodisnt , The slost r e l i g i o u s l y t r a d i t i o n a l s e c t i o n s of
the country a r e a l s o the most p o l i t i c a l l y right-wing.
Orthodox b e l i e v e r s kave had no d i f f i c u l t y a t a l l rejecting
t he v a l i d i t y of whatever f a i t h the r e l i g i o u s l l b e r a l c la ims
he has. Buckle-y nou~iskies t hose pred'rspositfons often and
well .
Second, 3uckPey pre-empts r h e t o r i c a l l y s t r a t e g i c
ground by a r m g a t i n g t o h i a own s i d e pa t r io t i sm and t h e
b l e a s l f i ~ s of r-stional. t ra8 : l t ion . This appeal, l i k e t h a t
of r e l i g ion , has s t rong emotional p u l l . And hero, too,
on h is own hshalf tho conserva t ive can make a plausible
prima-facie case. If he advocates maintaining the status
guo, one honors the past and i t s tradttions more palpably
than the innovator , i t would sugerf i c i a l l y appear. T h e
Founding F a t h e r s d i d not, a f t e r a l l , support Socia l
Secur i ty , the progressive income t a x , o r r a c l a l integra-
t ion . Eence, the deba te r will speak of liberals ". . . l i k e Nornalr L:aiPzr, who have cut themselves o f f from the
Great Traditron . . . . "11 And exce rp t s from 3uckleyr s
tribute to Douglas MaaArthur on the occasion of the
General's d e ~ t h show how subt ly and p iquant ly one can
s o l i o i t g a 6 r i o t i c fse l ings and toward what attitudes they
naturally incline:
MacArthur was the last of the great Americans. It isnl t a t all c e r t a i n that Amerioa is capable of pro- ducing another man of Y,7aohrthurfs caste, Such men spring f130;: tha lo lns of nations In vrhose blood courage runs, and ~ v o a r e g r a m anemfc. That 1s why so many have sgskoA? of an ago t ha t would d i e with IAacArthur, An age ivhcre, occa~ionally, heroes arose, acknowledg- ing as tkila2r t : ~ g e r a t i v e s t h a t duty, honor, and country which MaalL~tkl-ur c h r i s h s d , but vrhich the n a t i o n tha t r e j e c t e d hi:ii hss no etoxac'h f o r , p re fe r r ing the a d u l - t e r a t e d su53ti t . r?t@s of our age of modulation. * s O Q Y O O * U s O . O e * * . . . * . . . * e e . . . I f we a s a n a t i o n must die, vfe can f i n d no bet-te-r P J O ~ ~ S $G d T e by , t h i s s i ea of S c ~ f p t u r e , than his, givcc a t h i s last publ5c appearance a t West Polnt:
"The sh::dovss aro Isngthenii?g fop me. The t w l l i & h k 53 here , i!ly days of old have van i shed - tone and tint. Tr~ey havc goy-e gLi~~71aring throllgh the dreams of things t ka t w o r e . T i o l r memory is one of wondrous b e a u t y , waterad bg tears and coaxed and caressed by the smiles of yesterday. I l i s t en va in ly , but w i t h t h i r s t y ear, f o r the ~ i 5 c h i a . g melody of f a f n t bugles blowfng
r e v e i l l e , of f a r drums beating the !-o7=lg r o l l . . . . But i n the evening of m y memor7 al.iiay3 t he re echoes and r e - echoes: D u t y , honor, courrtry,P2
To God, the author a d d s country. And another
r h e t o r i c a l l y esteemed v i r t u e , courage,
Thus, Euckley occuples r k e t o r l c o l l y stra t e g l c
ground n o t only by appropr i a t ing rellgion and p a t ~ i o t i s r n ,
but a l s o by psoclaimfng h i s va lo r , IE cmtrzs t , t o h l s
opponentst pus i l lan i rn l ty , and by pla7fn.g lqon h i s
l i s t e n e r s ' h e r o i c s e n a i b i l i t l e s . Rere 43 another d r s m t i c
c a l l t o arms, sounded a t the expense of craven l i b e r a l s :
The i m p l i c i t l o g i c of those of our l e a d e r s who dec l ine t o f i g h t f o r Cuba i s the logic of d e f e a t . Ul t imately t h e i r arguments m ~ s t , 3y l o g i c a l n e c e s s i t y , come down t o surrender . A n d i r ,deed this e x a c t l y is the naked word t h a t i s f i n a l l y be ing used t o d a y by a
I t few brave cov~nrds. . . . B e t t e r Xed than d e a d , " he [~ennc th Tynad writes, "seems an obvious d o c t r t n o f o r anyono n o t consumed by w death-v:ish: I would ra ther l i v e on my knees than d f e cn my !:n?ea ,?'
Well, assuming it Is rJonth tcvrard which we ape headed as a r e s u l t of our doterninztlon t o s t ay free, l e t it be saZd that TAr, Tynan u~ot ; ld n.ot need t o d i e on h i s kneea, but r a t h e r s tanding cp, 7Fnfch is how those of his ancestors d i e d before Em7n:.%lede, at Agincourt and Hastings, a& D ~ ~ k i s k , 1vh0 fox@.'^ OF the freedom of t h e i r descendants t o exhibit thcir moral . . . The i m p l i c i t cogency of s u r r e n d ~ s sj-11, they f e e l sure, overcome i n due course the deflant r h e t o r i c , and ease us i n t o a course of conclusive appe,c<soment. I t i s implied by IJessrs. qohnl Crosby and Tgxan t h a t the r i .@t w i n g seeks a war,. But i n f a c t we seok t o avoid war: and the surest way t o wvo5d war i s t o a s s e r t our wi l l ingness to wage i t . * . * * . . . . . . I . . * . . a . . . " . . . * . . .
To win t h i s ono it's going to take nerve, and take courage, and take a c e r t a i n kind 0% h w - i l f t y , t he humi l i ty that makes man aclxlowlodge the demands o f duty. . . . . Why our great r e t r ea t P rom duty? Because our l eade r s a r e , when a l l is said and done, scared. 13
Buckley does n o t forswear cap i t a l i z ing on the supposed
sexual elemcct in cowardice and courage:
But t hese [the l i b e r a l s j a r e In f a c t t h e warmongers, for they whet t h e a p p e t i t e of t he enemy as surely a s the s t r i p t e n s c r , by h e r progress ive r e v e l a t i o n s , whets tho a p p s t l t e of the crowd, "However I survey the f u t u r e , " concludes Ksnnoth T nan, "there seems t o ba nothing noble" i n dying. 'I want my wife t o have another c h i l d , and I want t o see t h a t ch i ld l e a r n t o wnlk," Those i n the '?lost of civilized mind and hear t ara e n ~ a g o d i n t r y i n g t o make j u s t t h a t poasiblo, the birth of another c h i l d t o Kenneth Tynan, a lways assuming he has left t h e v i r i l i t y t o procrea te one ,I4
There ex i s t s , we discover , a committee t h a t w i l l inform young d r a f t a b l e Anerkcans how t o bea t t h e d r a f t , Amsng the quafnt suggostfons being of fe red i s tha t a d r a f t e e f e i g n homossxuality. I expect some of those vino would t r y t h i s dodge could make p r e t t y convincing denonstrat ions , l5
No o r d i n a r y man wants t o be thought homosexual.
Buckley's impl ica t ion seeas t o be t h a t if you do not want
t o "stand upe' t o the comxunists, you may have earned t h a t
Last , Buckley pre-ernpts r h e t o r i c a l l y s t r a t e g i c
ground by employing the syl logism and t h e logicianls tech-
nical terms, The u t i l i z ~ t i o n of r e l i g i o n , pa t r io t i sm, and
bravery a s porsuanive devices involves , b a s i c a l l y , an
npponl t o pathos, rio ma t t e r how appropr i a t e t o one's pro-
gram such an ap,neal might seem, o r how inhe ren t ly r a t i o n a l
one ? s entrati ty, The expedient now considered, logos
i t oa l f -o r more sccura t e ly , t h e a n a l y t i c a l ornamentation
w i t h which Euckley err,belliakes his arguments--would seem
on t h e surface t o d r a w t h e observer nea re r the essences
of suasive Gnericcn discourse, s i nce f ee l i ng Is no t an
element i n the appeal. However, the audience in question
is inclined toward the case a t hand, t h a t is, toward t he
example and inductive argument from i t ; and 9s r e l a t i v e l y
unresponsive "c the univer an l , tha t ls, t o the genera l fza t ion
and deductive a r~ument f r o m i t . So i t is not the sy l l o -
g i s t l c kind of reasoning tha t Americans take we l l to.
Perhaps, again, Buc%leyls t a c t i c i n using the sy l -
logism and the SogScianqs t echn ica l terms is r e a l l y an
attempt a t e t h i c a l procf. "Notice how e rud i t e and obtru-
s i v e l y r a t i o n a l I am, " he may be saying. "You sure ly must
bel ieve what I t e l l youetf
However Americans do i n f a c t r eac t t o deduc t ive
reasoning, o r v~hatevsr kind of appeal he i s consciously
making i n the follotving ins tances , Buckleyq s s y l l o g i s t i c ,
o r quas i - sy l log i s t i c , mode sf proof s t r i k e s one a s uniquo.
Most d isputants content themselves with t h e enthyneme when
developing t h e i r case deductively, an enthymeme being a
syll.ogism i n v~hlch one o f the premises o r the conclusion
is not explfcftly s t a t e d , To best i l l u a t r a t s what an
snth~ymsme i s , one might begin by c i t i n g an example of a
complete s y l l o g i s ~ n , The following i s a t y p i c a l one:
A l l men a r e mortal; S o c r a t s s is a nan; Therefore, Socra tes i s mortal.
I n most r h e t o r i c a l discourse such a n argument
would be shortened to something l i k e this: A l l men a r e
mortal , so Soc ra t e3 is morta l . Here what i s c a l l e d the
('minor premise" is missing. O r t h e argument m i , ; h t be
couched i n t h i s v a r i a n t form: S o c r a t e s is a man; t h e r e f o r e
Soc ra t e s is mor t a l . I n this c a s e the "major premisen is
miss ing. The speakor i s no t a rgu ing any t h e l e s s s y l l o g f s -
t i c a l l y o r l o g i c a l l y ivP.en he employs such enthymemes. He
i s simply be ing l e s s formal and l e s s p r e t e n t i o u s . H e
lmows the audience is capable of f i l l i n g i n t h e miss ing
l i n k .
Bucklcy c h a r a c t e r l s t i c a l l y goes beyond t h e enthy-
meme t o s e t u p a full-blown syl logism. h'ere is an
i l l u s t r a t i o n :
Sone y e a r s ago, a f t e r ?firs. [ ~ l e a n o g Roosevelt had w r i t t e n 2 column lfkening h4cCarthyism t o H i t l e r i sm, I suggested on a t e l e v i s i o n program t h a t symbolic of the s lug ,~ is i?ness of L ibe ra l -d i r ec t ed anti-Communism was t h e f ~ c t t h a t should Eleanor Hoosovelt happen upon Sena to r XcCnrthy a t a c o c k t a i l p a r t y she tvould probably r e f u s e t o shalce hands w i t h hS.m, whereas she would a l ~ o s t a s su re lg shake Vishinslqrts hand a t t h e scme pa r ty . ( i indrsf Vishinsky was then head of t he Scv ia t d e l e ~ a t i o - n i n NET: York.) A day O r two l a t e r , a r e - p o r t e r b z ~ u ~ b t t h o remark t o h e r a t t e n t i o n . 'Ahat about i t? he asked. Mrs. Roosevelt answered emphati- c a l l y t'43a"tho would shalra hands w i t h both Vishinsky and KcCa~thy a t ally f u tu r e a f f a i r , t h a t in p i n t of f a c t 3bo oi?ce - l ~ s d sholcsn brcCartPlyt s hand ( t h e mexory was o v f d c ~ i t l g s c a r o d upon her n lnd) ; and t h a t , of courso , she had seen a g r e a t d e a l of Vishinsky whfle sho was v ~ i t 5 the L??, hanmering ou t the Dec la ra t ion of Zmsn ;i'.,-;hts,
S t i l l l a t e r , in h e r a u e s t i o n and answer c o l u ~ n In " 7 v i ~ m ~ n f 3 Xoxe Companion, the ques t lon appeared, "In t h e - - . " -
z recocc col-ifin sou dofended your r i p z t t o shake hands vif "; ~ J P . ~ i s h ~ r a s k ~ , andv ~ e n a t o ; McCarthy. 'hJould you a l s o have f e l t t t w a s right t o shake hands w i t 3 AdoYf E i t l e ? ? " To ivhich Mrs. Roosevelt answered, "In Adolr" H i t l e r t s e a r l y days I might have considered i t , but a f t e r he had begun h i s mass k i l l f n g s I d o n ' t
t h i n k I caul-d have borne it . I f
I sug2sst Yrs. Roos3vel t fa philosophy of hand- shaking dcos n o t amerge from the da ta . I f cve were t o s e t u:) a syl logism, here is how i t mould look:
Propos i t ion A : E. R. w i l l n o t shake hands with those ~ 1 1 0 a r a g u i l t y of mass k i l l i n g s .
Propos i t ion B: E, R. wf 11 shake hands w i t h Andrel Vishinsky.
Conclusion: Vlshinsky is n o t g u i l t y of mass k i l l i n g 3 ,
Uut Vishfnnliy was g u i l t y of mass k i l l f n g s . Mrs. Rooseveit Irnetv of t h a t . . . . 'Jlhat could she h a v e been trying t o s a y ? Thnt t h e r e w e r m f e r e n c o s S e t w c o i ~ h ' i t f e r and Vishinsky of t h e type one takes s t o c k o f b c f o r s extending one ' s hand?
The prcceeding example is ono of ariy number , . . t h a t denonstrata Bks. Roossve l t f s l a c k of i n t e l l e c t u a l r i g o r ; i t a l i c s in the o r l g i n a ~ ~ l 6
In Chapter 3 the i n v e s t i g a t o r w i l l e x p l o r e how
c u l t u r a l l y appropr i a t e Buckloy's a rbwen t is. One need
only n o t e t h a t the d i s l e c t i c l a n f s case looks good on the
surf ace, The sy l l og f srn appears v a l i d enoupa-tha t i s t o
say, the qonclusion f o l l o v ~ s i n a formal sense, from the
promises Buckley has fashioned--and s o there is supe r f i c i a l
reason t o sumnise, indeed, t h a t Mrs. Roosevelt i s incon-
s i s t e n t .
Somet2ius t h e au tho r w i l l merely suggest the sy l -
l o g i s t i c fiods w l . t h c a r e f u l l y ordered po in t s s e t o f f by
Tormal-looking l o t t e r a o r numbers, o r w i t h high-sounding
''preni~es~" T??e ''god3ess communism" quo ta t ion on page 17
is on0 oxzcp ls oi? t h i s obtrusive r a t i o c i n a t i o n . There
axf s t many otYAers, 17
Idore o f t e n , Bucklay w i l l imply i n t e l l e c t u a l riser
by employing the and tho r h e t o r i c i a n f 8 , tech-
n i c a l t e i ~ . ~ . & 2 r f o p i 1 s , 2 p o s t e r i o r i t s , - a f o r t i o r l f s ,
ethos of t h e opponent, an endeavor t o des t roy his credi -
b i l i t y and his s tanding a s an au thor i ty , and t o enhance
one's own. blhntever h i s conscious motivations, Buckley is
a combative forons ic f o e indeed:
I s h z l l bo assuming t h a t i n most r e spec t s the l i b e r a l i d e o l o g i s t s a r e , l i k e Zen Quixote, wholly normal, with f u l l y developed pcmers of thought, t h a t they see things a s they a r e , and live t h e i r l f v o s according t o tl--a Word; but t h a t , l i k e Don Quixote, whccever anything touches upon t h e i r mania, they become iprespons ib le . . . . Cross a 1 , ibera l on d u b and he becomes a man of h u r t l i n g irrationality . .is It ithe dcf6roncc l i b o r a l s show toward Mrs. ~ o o s e v e l ~ mfiy bs ~ O C ~ C S = a ) they a r e aware t h a t Mrs. I ioosevel t ls c- toz~t ~ O Y ~ ~ L E I ~ 3rd p01 i t i caQ assoa ia t ion with h e r h u s b find have s i c invested h e r with a glamor t h a t is h ighly b t i l i t a r i a n , o r because b ) (this explanat ion f s both mope p laus ib le and more c h a r i t a b l e ) , Krs . Roosevelt s polemical l i f e i s l ived r igh t in the h e m t of the L ibe ra l mania, with the r e s u l t t h a t , thomselvs3 b e ~ s f t of t h e i r sensos, they a r e incapable of recognizing t h a t Mrs Roosevelt I s b e r e f t ofhsrs . 19
Buckley sug,gosts i t is more humane to c a l l someone dense
then t o defane him a s a schemer.
Even t he e d i t o r ' s f a v o r i t e l i b e r a l , Murray Kemptoq
whom the conservat ive has, on occasion, fulsomely eulo-
gized, i s n o t inmris: "Ah, t h e capaci ty f o r systematic
thought S-E never had i t . . . ."20 Whether o r not the
a s s a u l t Ps lcavon8d with f l a t t e r y , t h e r e 1s so very o f t e n
i n the Buckley rhe top ic an a s s a u l t :
I niontio:? this hor ro r s t o r y rubout a progessor who, acc 3 r d i n g t o Buckleg, ' 'ignorant lyir challenged the v a l i d i t y of the l1dsn1alPof-the-consoquentqt s y l l o - g i s a about 14~3. Xoosevalt, above] f o r t h e benef i t of those tvho c a m o t b r ing themselves t o believe what I propose t o s a y about the he lp lessness of t h e L ibe ra l
mind when f a c e t o f ace with elementary l o g i c a l prob- lems In c~17l.ch i d e o l o g i c a l Heroes and Villains a r e involved ,21
I g ran t that fol lowing IiIrs. Roosevelt i n s e a r c h of i r rn l t iona ' l i l ty i s lllce fo l l owing a burnfng f u s e i n s e a r c h of an explos ive ; one never has t o w a i t very long .22
The l e f t - c r a z i e s have dominated the c o l l e g e scene, and t h e r e f o r e t h e news . , . . 23
Real ly , tho l i b e r a l s ar3 something-one needs t o re- mfnd onese l f h.ow very kooky they can be,24
They o s t e n s i b l y can be q u i t e s t u p i d . The l i b e r a l s who
h a r a s s t h e Houss Un-American A c t i v i t i e s Committee a r e "a
c o l l e c t i o n of kooks and kooks! lawyers. ''25 The Committee
f o r a Sane Nuclear Po l i cy "is headed f o r cuckooland. tr26
The N e w -- York Revietv of Books i s " the l a s t cou r t of appea l - -- f o r highbrow sc rewba l l s , ' I ~ ~ Marlon Branda possesses an
"inflamed ninny-miad . t'28 The a s s i s t a n t l i b r a r i a n a t
Tulane Univsr s i t y is a "harsbra inf ' f o r removing N a t i o n a l
Review from tho browsing r o l m s h e l v e s , 29 And P ro fe s so r
Hughes of Harvard o p e r a t e s i n a "Freak House" w i t h ot 'ner
r l p o l i t i o a l qaec r s ."30 A l l a cco rd ing t o Buckley. This i s
narfio-calling, t o bs s u r e , bu t name-cal l lng aimed a t t h e
I n t e l l e c t ,
Presi3ent Divight Eisenhower would appear i n t h e
Buckkey rhetoric t o be a s p e c i a l c a se , almost t h e
Republf can Eleozor Roosevelt :
[~isenhcwe-r $31 a renowned ignoramus . , . . who, never i n his l i f e t i m e , so f a r as Is known, has generated a s l n g l e thought t h a t could engage t h e a t t e n t i o n of' s e r i o u s men . . . , 31
. %in ~ 2 l s e n h o r e r ~ s ~ occupancy of h igh o f f i c e is the r e s x l t o f a r a g i n g n a t i o n a l ignorance. . . . . . . fihere ps r s f s ts j t h e s tubborn, t h e i n v i n c i b l e ignorance of I h v i g h t Eisenhower . . . .32
From Eiaonhawar t ho press expected on ly t h e endless confused S ~ . n a l i t i e s , which checked any chance of pur- posive thought. . e . N I ; ~ man who e v e r l i s t e n e d t o M r . Elsenhoaer d i scus s our problems walked away expec t ing a coherent n a t i o n a l po l icy . B u t M r . Kervledy u s e s who10 sen tences w i th sub jec t s , o b j e c t s and vorbs,33
These a r e j u s t a few examploa of Buckleyfs recourse t o
t h i s dev ice , Thsre a r e many o t h e r s .34
Bnoths? s p o c ? f i c a l l y o f f e n s i v e maneuver i n t h e
r h e t o r i c of ' i irflli~m Bilckley, l e s s a g r e s s i v e and perhaps
more a r t f u l , i s 111s tendenoy t o t w i t , t o l i g h t l y poke fun
a t , h i s adversayy, o f t e n q u i t e humorously. One way t h e
convervat i v s d e l i v e r s t hese t a u n t s i s through a n i n g r a t i -
a t i n g and d i s t i n & i v e uso of c a p i t a l l e t t e r s :
Beyond t h a t , t h e r e seems t o have been no g e n e r a l s o c i o l o g i c a l c r i t i c i s m [ o f Tr~~rnan Capotel s party-; though no doubt if t h a s o c i e t y e d i t o r s had thought t o te lephone t h o Roverond Will iam Sloano Coff in of Yale c o l l s c t , he'd have given them a very good argument fop the a b o l i t r o n of Truman Capote, which one supposes he h a s prog~ar:isiad a f t e r he g e t s around t o a b o l i s h i n g S k u l l and 2anss which h e is now working on, so a s t o Prevant ' B x / ~ t t s "36
On Frid=iy ":iy 15 ',"Jslter Cronki te telephoned Gettysburg t o sQa :I :lo c c c i d n r t t a l k 14r. Eissnhower i n t o d e - nounc:ng 'chz I i o r r ib l e Extremism of Senator ~ ? - o l d w a t o r . ~ ~
Xo, our p;?si'czsor of Philosophy s imply rescinded h i s o-dor b o : c o n t a and t i e s t o dinnee, aghast a t ,he rovel~-LLon t ' l a t , a l 'oei t subconsciously, he had e n t e r t a i n a d an Undemocratic Thcught .37
An ir .vetsrate l i s tmake r , t h e columnist can c a r r y
h i s i ternizat ions t o dfsamning absu rd i ty :
It ~ o i x a i n s ex t r ao rd ina ry t h a t a t a time when i n t e l l c c t u 7 1 3 can g a s p t h e comploxlty of t h e s t a t e - ment t h a t ?A a q u a l s mc s q u a r e d , s o many of them should have s o rir;lTh d i f f i c z t y understanding what, f o r ins tance , ShIY'caker Charabers means b y asking the quost ion of P?nhether the West deserves t o be saved. 'I
iiZlat, i r o f c o s o r l l r v i n g ilowej demands t o know, is t?le West? "The Salk vaccine o r Jim Crow? Anesthesia o r t o r t u r e ? Shakospears o r S p f l l a n e ? The seven-hour day o r c h i l d labor?" I lk i t t ake r Chambers o r I r v i n g Howa? 1 1 ta lics i n the original].38
Still. i"cs E, r e l i e f . . . t o r ead a novel[hrorman ~ailer's Ar p s r i c a n riream] in which the pro6agonist doosn l t dLTenci f a r ~ h i s s a l v a t i o n on l i f e r a f t s c a s t -- ou t i n t o tks sea of hope by 'Llarx, Freud, o r U ~ h a n t . ~ ~
In brief', the e s s a y i s t can mock h i s opponent by
coining d ~ o l l t i t l e s :
E e r b e ~ z I.;a tihew and FSde l Castro: I got my job through The X e v ~ York ~ i r n e s 4 0 - - --
The Vio la t ion of Arthur ~ c h l e s i n ~ e r ~ ~
Doings a t Dr* E;utchinsT
Full Ihon f o r ~ e m ~ t o n B 3
And by wri t ing the piquant bpilogue:
And s u r e l y i t is sorne s o r t of t h r e a t t o t h e n a t i o n a l sense of humor,, on which of course democratic i n ~ t f t u t s o i ~ s rely at mohents of s ~ e c i a l stsess, when a p ro fesz ioca l zbmedian can sum up h i s indictmhnt in t h e f o l l o a l n g tGczs: -
?+$A? lLv c i s even a n t l - s e l f de temina t fon f o r colonlai . 2sop les , . . . Bere9s the kind of thing i;:: i" r sU CI..-~ - . -b j "..; kas said. A n inte?vlewer once asked h l m !You iT~asE :::at tke e o l o r o d nations of Afr ica should n o t hnvo .:5,: ~ f g ' n t of s e l f - d e t e r n i n a t i ~ n ? ~
? . . : - $1- . . ~ i o , n o t until they are ready to form "'ov(? ~1p~:>'; y: 3 5
ui5-+;d " ; l ' i . ; ~ ~ s a i d : q\rieP1, when do you th ink they w i l l be?'
"He s a i d : 81ihzR they s t o p e a t i n g each other . ! " T h y a v;hat lrir, Buckley sa5.d. And there 9 s that
whole lac!: of humanity I think i n h i s philosophy.tt44
A thSrd s p e c i f i c a l l y o f fens ive t h r u s t which
c b a r a c t e r i ~ e ~ h i s r h e t o r i c i s Buckleyqs i n c l i n a t i o n t o
g rasp f o r a8vsntase even where, a s i t were, t he point
t r f v i a l and i r r e l e v a n t , d e f i n i t e l y no t central
the d e b a t e . An in s t ance of this preoccupation is found i n
The Unrnakin.6 of a T.!ayor, The candida te needed t o devote a C_
- - considerable p o r t i o n of h i s speeches t o an i tem by i tem
analysis of t h e linguistic " e r r o r s t t o f then Congressman
Johr. Lindsay, h2s Republican opponent. Tho purpcse of tho
p loy nay have been t o r i d i c u l o l,lr, Lindsay 's intelligence,
hu t h e r e h l s ~ ~ t h c d was q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t . Ee d i d
not address hi:: advs r se ry wi th some p e j o r a t i v e . He in s t ead
focused on t r i z l l - n g and immater ia l "faux - e l q :
l!rr, Lindsey . say8 of Yr, Abraham Bearno t h a t he tfpromfscs riot progress but p r o c r a s t i n a t i o n , n o t i d e a s bu t i n d f f l a r e n c e , c o t enorgy but evasiveness , n o t zdvanconient but apathy. "
Vhat 1s wrong with t h a t sentence-other than i t s s u i c i d a l soarch f o r n l l i t e r a t ion? 'ir'hat i s wrong with i t I s t'n3.L it 'is u n i ~ t e l l i g i b l e . Iiow can an o r d e r l y mind muintsin t h a t BTr. Benme frgromises p roc ras t in - a t i o n " ? And in what sense i s *evasivenesst' t h e oppo- s i t e of "oncrgy" 'i
A s f o r your s e rvan t , F~lr. Lindsay accused m e of soeking '!.to c o ~ r ~ g ~ a d e and v i t i a t e , t o d iv ide , t o ne- gate, ~ncl t o p e y upon t h e t e n s i o n s and r o a r s among o u r po~pl3,~' OW ( a ) I would ba very happy, indeed, t o "vit4rfe'"t;he t ens ions an8 f e a r s of our people- t h~ t , P;L i a c t , is why I a m running f o r o f f i c e . So why shou ld Ilr. Lizdsey (unless he favor s v a l i d a t inp; - Gho f a a r c 3f tho people) , c ~ i t i c i z o t h i s ? And ( b r Iiow o n ea2 th does one "d iv idev n tension^' l e t a lone a " f ea r s ' ? And y L ~ v i ~ @en one sirr,ul-taneouolg " v i t i a t e p. tons2cn," and "pray upon i t ? " [ S i c ; i t a l i c s i n the o r i g i n a l j i 5
Gns neod no t demonstrate tbat 1 ; ~ . Lindsay's phrasing is not
e l l t h a t imprecise , The point i s t h a t the Congressman's
31
way with t r a n s i t i v e verbs had not a g r e a t d e a l t o d o wi th
the issues confront ing t h e v o t e r s of Nevr York Ci ty i n 1965.
Buckley found i t expedient t o s e i z e upon t h i s minutia i n
o rds r t o undormfne h i s opponent 's position. It is a
c h a r a c t e r i s tf c maneuver.
In t h i s chap te r t h e r e has been presented a des-
c r i p t l v e analys is o f t h e persuasive s t ra tagems i n t h e
r h e t o r i c of birflliarn F. 13uckley. By way of in t roduc t ion ,
the c l a s s i c a l elements In persuasion-ethos, pathos, and
logos-were derfned. I n gene ra l terms, tho i n v e s t i g a t o r
ou t l ined t h e likaly power each of t h e s e modes e x e r t s on
A4rner2cans. I n chsp te r s 3 and 4 t h i s l i n e of i nqu i ry w i l l
be developed i n g rea te r depth.
Sone of the broad approaches found In Buckley's
work were then l i s t e d a n d descr ibed , es w e l l a s the de-
v i ces by which he prs-empts r h e t o r f c a l l y s t r a t e g i c ground.
They involved the a u t h o r ' s apgeals t o r e l i g i o n , p a t r i o t -
4 s x , and valoz*, ond his use of t h e syl logism and many
o'ckler traspisgs of fo rna l l o g i c t o suggest r igorous
tkought, such as tho jargon of t h e log ic i an .
Cited wore e. few of t h e s p e c i f i c a l l y o f fens ive
rhe t o p i c a l mzneuvers vfhich Luckley is inc l fned t o employ.
They a r e the cunsorvative's r e c u r r e n t a s s a u l t on t h e
opponent ' s i ~ t o l l i g e n c e ; t h e use of humor and mockery;
32
,rid the exploitat i on of the supposed, t r i v i a l , and Irrele-
vant mistakes of the adversary.
THE
CRAPTER 3
INTRODUCTION
Af te r an examination of the modes of persuasion
whLch cbarac ter fze t h e r h e t o r i c of William F, Buckley, the
c r f t i c must turn next t o this quest ion: what is the na tu re
of the audience Buckley seoks t o persuade? Because this
s tudy dea ls with n o t one p a r t i c u l a r persuasive e f f o r t ,
e i t h e r o r a t o r i c a l or l i t e r a r y , but r a t h e r w i t h t he sum
t o t a l of the conse rva t fve f s o r a l and w r i t t e n r h e t o r i c , the
audience the i n v e s t i g a t o r is concerned w i t h is t h e aggre-
ga te of p o t e n t i a l readers of Buckleyls books and a r t i c l e s ,
and p o t e n t i a l l f s t e n e r s t o F l r i n g Line. The audience - addressed i n his newspaper column " O n the Right" i s especi-
s l l y a broadly bnssd comon denominator readership. Tfie
audience l u therefore the American people,
Th i s a g g r s p t e audience w i l l be ca l l ed t h e uni -
v e r s a l h o r i c a n audience by way of v a r i a t i o n on Chairn
Perelmant s concept of the ~ i i v e r s a l audience, A s noted,
Perelman h a s l a i d the g r e s t e s t p o s s i b l e stress on the need
f o r t h e r h e t o ~ t o understand h i s audience and t o "adapt
33
34
himself t t t o i t . He has defined argumentation as essen-
t i a l l y ' ' a funct ion of the audience being addressed." He
h a s suggested t h a t ". . . w e m i & t cha rac te r i ze each
sponlcer b y the image ho himself holds of t h e un ive r sa l
audience t h a t he is t r y i n g t o ivTn over t o h i s vievr"; t h a t ,
i n add i t ion , ". . . each c u l t u r e . . . has i t s own concep-
t i o n of tho u n i v e r s a l audience." He h a s of ferod i n tke
next sentence t h a t " t h o study of these variations would
be very i ~ s t m z c t l v ~ . ~ ~ Therefore, our inqui ry w i l l seek t o
discover the s i m i l a r i t i e s and d f s s i m i l a r i t i e s between the
conception of what Americans a r e l i k e implfed i n Buckley's
r h e t o r i c , and the conception Americans apparent ly have of
thenselvos i?L?srant i n how they a c t .
Kore s p e c i f i c a l l y , t he c r i t i c w i l l r a i s e these
quest ions: given t h e q u a l i t y of h is r h e t o r i c , is Buckl.eyfs
thought, is Buckleyv s demeanor, a r e Buckley's standard
maneuvers l i k o l y t o move t o b e l i e f and t o a c t i o n those
nur tured i n the Anglo-American c u l t u r e , the u n i v e r s a l
Aaerican audLeneo5 Do h i s thought, h i s demeanor, and h i s
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c appeals r e f l e c t t h e values , expecta t ions ,
and mores o r Americans? Do they d o v e t a i l wi th the c u l t u r -
ally p a t t e ~ n o d i n c l i n a t i o n s of people reared i n the United
S t a t e s ? And the r s fo ra a r e Americans l l k e l y t o i d e n t i f y
wi th these views and modes, and i n them see themselves re-
f l e c t e d ? First, thcugh, the n a t u r e of t h i s audience must
be ex'amined.
TEE NATURX OF THE UNIVERSAL Al*ERICAN AUDI hJCE
PeroSraan s t a t e s :
The s t u d y of audiences could a l so be a study f o r sociology, sfnce a man's opinions depend not s o much on h f s own charactor, as on h i s s o c i a l environment, on the poopla he assoc ia tes with and l i v e s among, . . , Every s o c i a l c i r c l e o r mil ieu is d is t inguishable i n terms o f its dominant opinions and unquss tioned be- l f e f s , of the prsmis@s t h a t lt takes f o r granted w i t h - out hesitztfon: these views form an i n t e g r a l pa r t of i t s cu l t a r e , e n d ac o ra to r wishing t o persuade a par- t i c u l a r nudfence mst of necess i ty adapt himself t o i t 3
This e f f o r t to deternine t h e mi l ieu , the ex t e rna l l i m i -
t a t i ons and obstac les f ac ing t he American rh s to r , w i l l be
a soc io logicnl one, s ir ,ce American thou,@-it and ac t ion a r e
determined by such broad-gauged evolut ion. 2
Nankfnd has developed cu l t u r a l l y , from the t r i b a l
v i l l a g e t o the modern industrial s t a t e , along two major
axes: from assoc la t ivo t~ abs t rac t ive , and from universal-
or iented to c a s e - o r ~ e n t e d . ~ The primit ive comrrwnity (cne
uses the word " p r ~ n f t ive" circumspect l g ; the aborigina 1
cu l tu res ye t extnnt oyhibi t g r ea t complexity4) i s associ-
a t i v e i n that bunar~ re la t ionsh ips the re a r e es tabl i shed and
shaped by fzec- to-face contacts , o r associa t ions . A t r fbes -
rr,un relates to averyono e lae in terms of i n t r i n s i c person-
hood because hs knows everybody, physical ly impinges on
everybody, with whom he needs t o have dealings. I n t h i s
p r i s t i n e o r d e r , t h e family, i n i t s extended form, is the
pre-eminent u n i t , the bonds o f blood which un i t e i t not
36
ye t loosenod by counterva i l ing pressures . Fether , mothcr,
son, daughter, daughter-in-law, grandfather , grandmother,
e t c . , a t t ach t o one another ind i s so lub ly by the 8 t r o n g ~ ) ~ t
of r i l l no~oc1aL ' l .ons. Tho struoture of s o c j - o t y 13 t h i ~ n .tho
s t r u c t u r e of kinship. The "g~vernment ,~ ' i f one can call
i t t h a t , is a gerontocrecy.5
The p r i i i i t l ve community is a l s o , as one would sus-
pect , undifferentiated i n func t ion and i n thought. With
t h e except ion of divergent sexual r o l e s , everybody "does
the same th ing ," be i t hunt, ga ther , o r what you w i l l .
There a r e no a b s t r a c t e d professions, no d iv i s ions of labor
i n t o p r i e s t , s o l d i e r , hunter , o r farmer, to complicate tho
primal a s soc fa t ion . Likewiss, in t h e t r ibesman's organi-
z a t i o n of phenomena, c r i t e r i a 1 bounderies a r e few. Animate
t h ings a r e a l i v e , but s o a l s o a r e some of the inanimate.
Rel igion i s magi0 and magic Is everywhere. The man from
t h e neighboring tp ibe is an e t h i c a l o u t s i d e r whom one can
k i l l without a quzlm. One does not "know'' him, so there-
f o r e the rauPes d o not apply. There i s l i t t l e s e l f -
consciousness, almost no r e f l e c t i o n on the "IPt which msdi-
a t e s expe~ ience . 8
mt i n o p r l z e v e l s t a t e is, then, an emotive exis tence ,
s t r u c t u r s d by "'i'irst-name" r e l a t i o n s h i p s and bounded by the
l i m i t s of p ~ o x f z l t y . It exprasses i t s e l f i n the dream-like
f r e e a s soc ia t ions of art, myth, and r e l i g i o n .
The t r l b a l v i l l a g e Ss s t ruc tu red , too, by a t l e a s t
37
one o t h e r agency, tho pr5rnitive'a next most salient trait:
r i g i d unPversal oriantation. The care- f rae savage of The - S o c i a l Contrsct , lop ing through the savama unfe t t e red and - untamed, is an invention. Rousseau notwithstanding, man
was born, c u l t u r s l l y , in chalns , a s l ave t o a r b i t r a r y and
c a t e g o r i c a l r u l e s , a bondsman t o t r a d i t i o n . There was,
and remains, f o r the pr imi t ive , no need f o r po l ice : with-
out quos t ion h e obeys. He I s f e a r f u l ; he is supers t f i t fous ,
Ee m i & t spend u? t o one t h i r d o f h i s waking hours a t t end-
ing t o r i t u a l . X i s ltfe i s hence s t y l i z e d , arranged around
a ' s c r f e s of habi:s. It i s a s d i s t a n t from p r a c t i c a l i t y a s
l i f e can be . To the trlbesmnn m a t e r i a l goods ma t t e r l i t t l e .
5 is i s a search f o r honor, f o r the c o ~ ~ o d i t y of t r a d f t l o n a l
value, be it a necklace of a long-toothed boar. ( E o t t h a t
p r imi t ive man doesn ' t pursue pragmatfc a c t i v i t i e s i n an
i n t e l l i g e n t xanner. H e does. But they do not c o n s t i t u t o
his obsession.) Tho "noble savage" is t i e d , as i s no
o t h e r , t o the cap r i c ious , t o t h e t r a d i t i o n a l , t o the given,
t o the a p r i o r f s t i c . I n f i n i t e l y more than Macbeth, he i s
"cabinod, c r l b b e d , confined, bound in t o saucy doubts and
~ B B ~ S . "7
i;ov~ d i d p r i m 1 t i v e man evolve into t h e a b s t r a c t i v e ,
case-or iented Srr,ericar. with whom the persuader deals? The
ohsngea, c e r i p L n l y tYLe a s s o c i a t i ve -abs t r ac t ive modif i c a -
t i o n s , t renspired-gradual ly of course-as v o r t i c s l l y d i s -
t i n c t groups e t r i b e s , c P ~ s t e r s of t r i b e s , n a t i o n s )
38
ce,me i n to contact ; and as hor izon ta l ly separated groups
( c a s t e s , s t r a t i f i e d c lasses , etc.--obviously evolut ionary
developments i n themselves) mixed, intercommunicated, and
became s o c i a l l y mobile. P la in ly , population growth, wars,
technologf cn l advancement, and missionary r e l i g ions , t o
c i t e ;ust a few of the means, wore instrumental in f l i n g i n g
people together-, This coming l ing generated ambiguous s i g -
na l s , which tl-,e blending cu l t u r e s reconci led through
nbs t r a c t i o n ~ s d codPficat ion of r u l e s .8 S9ec i f i c - d o q s and
don't ' s , supportad by sound reason, c i r c l i n g outward i n
ever-widening a r c s of a p p l i c a b i l i t y ; more and more pro-
nounced func t i on -~s l a tod d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n ; and an increas-
ing capaci ty t o disjobn cons idera t ions of person from public
business a r e some of' t h e genera l consequences of these
encounters. Put i n terms other than assocfa t ive t o
abs t rac t ive , thsse t rans fomat ions represent , t o var ious
degrees, the rnovenent from Gemeinschaft, o r community, t o
Gesellschaf t , society;g f ror l charisma to bureaucracy; 10
from s s c r i p t i o n %o e c h i e ~ e n c t n t ; ~ ~ from law of s t a t u s t o law
o f cont rac t ;I2 f ~ o m r e l a t i o n a l t o analy t ica l ;13 from pre-
l o g i c a l to logioal ;14 from di f fuseness and s f f e c t i v i t y t o
s p a c l f i c i t y and nf f ec t i ve neu t r a l i t y ;15 from sy-ncretic,
indof in i t e , s d r i g id t o d i s c r e t e , de f i n i t e , and f l ex -
f b l e .I6
Ins tanccs o f nascan '~ abs t r ac t iveness a r e severa l .
?or one, praimitlve comnunit$es evolved d i s c r e t e r o l e s ,
39
based on f ~ ~ c ' c i o r * , such as t h a t of p r i e s t , I n so doing:
the t r i bosman .abs t r ac t ed from t h e i d e n t i t y o f , say, t he
p r i e s t a p o r t i o n of his personhood and regarded h i m hence-
forward more In t o m s of what he d i d , l e s s in terms of
what he was, Totomism, too, was and is an i n i t i a l form of
a b s t r a c t i o n , s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of c l a n s on t h e b a s i s of
which they arrange exogamous exchanges of women, An anl-n
mal, a b i ~ d , o r a p lant became t h e d i s t i n g u i s h i n g s ign of
onef s family c l u s t e r .17 More advacced a b s t ~ a c t i o n came
with t he cz~oimlng of a sod-Icing i n wbom a l l t h e magi c ,
be fo re d i f fu sed among myriad o n t i t i e s , was concontra ted. la
Ancient Egypt, Smar, Mexico, and Peru are examples.
In ter rnedinto s o c i e t l s s (Medieval Europe, t h e
Ottoman Empire, present-day I n d i a ) mani fes t even g r e a t e r
a b s t r a c t i o n , bu t ye t remain by ou r s t anda rds I n t e n s e l y
a s s o c i a t i v e . These c u l t u r e s were and a r e s t r a t i f i e d , a
form of a b s t r a c t i o n , bu t movement between t h e c l a s s e s is
disal lowed, cm a s s o c i a t i v e t r a i t . Each group d re s se s i n a
p e c u l i a r f a sh ion ; p h y s i c a l and r a c i a l d i f f e r e n c e s tend t o
be emphasized. A s t o law and mores, t h e s e societies a r e
a s c r i p t i v e , states-oriented. l9 Each c l r s s adheres t o a
cod i f i ed ss: sf aules ( a b s t r a c t f v e n e s s ) , but the codes a r e
d i f f e r e n t for caeh (aasocia ' i ; lvoness) . Soc ie ty a t t r i b u t e s
c e r t a i n ~ i & t a , a c e r t a i n i d e n t i t g , according t o o n e f s
s t a t f o n . (There a r e v e s t i g e s of t h i s a s s o c i a t i v e a d j u s t -
ment in Anglo-ArrLerica even today. Peers a re t r f e d by
40
peers; r i c h men simply d o n o t s u s t a f n equal punishment i n
American jur isprudence; Southern whites s u f f e r , o r d i d
s u f f e r u n t i l t h e past decade, comparatively l i t t l e f o r
p e r p r e t r a t i n g r a c i a l crimes.)
A s t o development along the universal-or iented t o
case-oriented a x i s , intermediate c u l t u r e s demonstrate
change, b u t no"i;strikfng change. They a r e no t q u i t e ao
s u p e r s t i t l o u s , no r a r e they so much i n t h e t h r a l l of
r i t u a l as a r e t h e pr imi t ives , but enslvement t o the "gen-
e r a l pr inc ip le i ' p a r s i s t s , I n Western Europe the Middle
Ages were, f o r exaxple, a time of word obsession, words
corresponding: as they do t o u n i v e r s a l ca tegor ies . In
economics, ind iv idua l market considerations were, on the
whole, i r r e l e v a ~ t ; the doc t r ine of the " j u s t pr ice" over-
road p r a c t i c a l f t y . Universal ia -- a n t e rem df st inguished the
age. 20
\lidhat of c o ~ d i t i o n s a t present vis-a-vis both these
s e t s ~f p o l a r i t i e s ? Clear ly, with few exceptions, the Far
East continues frozen a t the intermediate s tage . A s he
moves westVi&rd, t3e observe^ meets w i t h ever more pro-
nounced abs t r sc t lveness and case-or lenta t ion, discovering
In the Vnited S t a c e s t he consurmately prnct i c a l , f m c t ion-
hoset c i v i l ~ z c t i o n . ~ l ( O f course, a l l modern s o c i e t i e s
a r e an am alga;^: of every kir.df of tendency. It I s a quest ion
of mix, The fimericzn b l e n d i s most 'tmodern,ft owing t o an
Anglo-Saxon patricony22 and the exigencies of t h e "melting
41
pot . t f ) America is , comaared t o say Eastern Europe o r
southern I t a l y , a cold, emotional ly barren landscape. I t s
family arrangement i s nuc lear-father , mother, children-
and ovon these olemontal threads a r e unraveling through
t h e tug of t s c h n o l o ~ j , mobil i ty , a f r luence , overpopulation,
and the t ightening pressures of cybernation. Except per-
haps f o r the first generation e t h n i c , Americans e s t a b l i s h
f r iendships e a s i l y and tormfnats them a s f a s t . They use
only p a r t s of one another, those p a r t s which correspond
t o t h e i r f u n c t l o i ~ a l r e l a t i o n s h i p . They enjoy acquaint-
ances on the job, fn the neighborhood, and a t t h e club,
most qu i t e probably with d i f f e r e n t ind iv idua l s , They pos-
sess no l i f e l o n g confidant with whom they share t h e i r whole
Achievement haunted, t h e t y p l c a l American de-
f i n e s himself w i t h his work, o r def ines himself v i r t u a l l y
not a t a l l .
Thera are axceptions t o t h i a general pa t t e rn , of
course. I n add i t ion t o immigrants, American Negroes s i t
back along the ax is a t r i f l e . They tend t o be more asc ip-
tive, l e s s achlsvoment-oriented) an expression no doubt of
t h e i r African h e r i t a g e and t h e i r exclusion from t h e
American mair.ntrecn.24 Pur themoro, the lower middle
c l a s s a c d the uppcr c l a s s d i sp lay signs of s o c i a l atavism
l e s s f requent ly found i n the upper middle c l a s s . I n the
lower middle c l a s s t'nsre p e r s i s t s a t r a c e s f the peasant
psychology (work fop a t r a d i t i o n a l l e v e l of well-being,
42
more) and p r e j u d i c h In the upper c l a s s thare endure
concepts of s t a t u s pecu l i a r t o more assoc ia t ive soc ie t i e s , I I
nnd there a b i d e s a l s o inordinate prejudf cs. I - - - As f o r ctise-orientation, the word Amerfcan i s s g n -
onpnous with tho p r ac t i c a l , the pragmatic, the common-
sensical . Universelia pos t - rsm breeds Yankee ingenuity. I
In the United S t a t e s it fs almost always f a c t s over w o r d s . I
Not so i n Russia. Bor, to a l e s se r ex ten t , i n E'rancaeP5
There the i dea , t h e universal , the ca teqor ica l articulation
takes p~ec@dc;?ce. I n America, f o r example, laws of evf-
dence a r e exzeedingly s t r i c t ( f a c t s , not words, a r e para-
mount); In F ~ a n c e tbey a r e less s o ; i n the Sovfet Union
P thev a r e nonexiat enmt . The .3ussians bui ld beau t i fu l I "
Leningrad-the fu ture , the ideal-while l i v i n g i n hovels.
k They w i l l manufacture the one "bes tv product, as designed
1: by t h e i r planners, t o serve the needs of a nat ion. To
Americans tho term is meani:igless. "Bestn automobile?
For whom? Ili depends on the case.26 If one were to ask
s Russian why his soc i e ty i s s o e l i t i s t - i n a country
foundod o:~ roasOn, there m u s t be an el i te-he would r e c i t e
Bisrx t o tha ef ' fsct t ha t t he r e s i m p l y cannot e x i s t an e l i t e
in a s o c f a l f s t socioty, ipso fac to , instead of descriSlng
peopieq s a c t ~ n l nodes of l i f a ."" (These propensi t ies have
t o do mainly n o t with the Revolution, but r a the r w i t h the I
Russian chnractcp tvhich xade the Revolution possible.) I
''P~i~ciples" do no t , i n con t ras t , paralyse
43
Americans, a t l e a s t not f o r long. Between the E. C. Knigh-t
decision ( 1S04) and t h a t of Jones and Laughlin (1937), tho
Supreme Court came close t o reversing i t s e l f on the ques-
t i o n of the govermentts power t o con t ro l commerce and
manufacturing, by taking i n t o consideratiol? intent, an
essence not delimited i n cold language.28 The same can
be sa id f o r the school desegregation overturn, Again,
not being bel ievers , Americans, as well as the B r i t i s h ,
need but two p o l i t i c a l pa r t i e s , the coa l i t i ons i n the
U. S. exuding: minimal So case-oriented, i n
f ac t , a r e Rcpublfcans and Democrats t h a t they can accam-
nodate Jacob J a v f t s and Roman Hruska on the one hand, and
Hubert Humphrey and Riehard Eastland on tho o ther . To the
logic ian these p o l i t i c a l miscellanies make no sense. E'or
those who want simply n t o ge t t he job done" o r "to make
things work," not d i e f o r t h e i r p r i va t e vis ion, the system
i s ingenious. The more a people are forced t o bend and
compromise within the context of party, the less t rouble
they w i l l have a f t e r t h e i r congress convenes, a f t e r t h e i r
president takes o f f i c e . The i n t e r e s t groups i n multi-party
( i , e ., universaP-oriented) countslies only then begin t o
f i g h t , and wfu-1 ponderably l e s s predispos i t ion t o g ive ic.
Furthermore, Anerican democracy without doubt
l i t e r a l l y s u r v i v e d Gccause the na t ion was not i n s i s t en t l y
Tf logica l tT about i t . Americans enfranchised, a t f i r s t , n o t
even every Caucasian male ; but a t the s o c i a l l y propit ious
mcment§, the su f f r age was extended. The same is t r u e of
England and Switzer land. Almost every o t h e r country t h a t
has t r i e d democracy attempted i t whole (un ive r sa l i sm) , with
f r equen t ly c a 1 a ~ i t ; ~ u s r e s u l t s . Sermanyfs P1professor ' s
const i t u t i o n q t 02 2848 was a magni f icent ly labored work,
complete w i t h footnotes. It d id n o t Past . 30 The Tieimar
c o n s t i t u t i o n was perhaps t h e most democratic document of
modern t i n e s . Thera were p l e b i s c i t e s on everything. It,
too, f a i l e d O 3 l Ihmocracy is perhaps not r e a l l y compatible
wf th s t r i ngen t unlvsrsnlisrn. Counting noses is " i r r a t ionalr '
to those who Gee tho "tmth.I1
Hence, a socfeky Ps behooved t o e n l a ~ g e the f r a n -
ch i se , o r t o t x n s f o r n i t s e l f i n any way, b u t slowly, f o r
t o o much change too f a s t produces information overload znd
s o c i a l d l s loca t fon . It is a " c o n s e r ~ a t i v e , ~ case-or iented
p r i n c i p l e t h a t l i b e r a l s f r e q u e n t l y do n o t l ea rn . But
althougl? it ouzht no t move too swiftly, a c u l t u r e has jus t
a s c e r t a i n l y t o r econc i l e amSiguous s l g n a l s , i n due time-
an a b s t r a c t i v e prscopt conserva t ives must s u r o l y recognize.
A >xir?;?onfzstisL of Axeriaar s two most s a l i e n t charac te r -
I s t i c s , abst if iaci ; iveneus and case -o r l ea t a t ion , thus p o w s
EorG difficuLC i n the e ra of Future Shock. 1
I t bocoaea a t r y i n g r e s o l u t i o n in one o the r r e s p e c t
alsc. Case-orisl25atSon has meant f o r Americans i n the past
d s ~ o n t ~ n l f z s d 2cclsion-making, another conspicuous conserv-
a t i v e texet, &riother prominent American t r a i t . Americans
are poor planners. It is not t h e i r s t y l e . Buckley
a r t i c u l a t e s wel l th i s ingrained predfsposi t ion:
. . . k conservative assumption is t h a t the p r i v a t e arrcngemant tends t o b e super io r t o tho public a r r a n p - mcnt becnuce . . . i t is inoro f l c x f b l e , perrni t t inq an inf l .nf ty o f ~ d j u s t m e n t s based on sn i n f i n i t y of prefer- ences . . . i t 1s l e s s c n t e g s r i c a l , and the re fo re less a r b i t r z r g , , i t i s less wasteful , i n t h a t i t is disc lp l incd by the competing pressures of a l t e r n a t i v s nodes of r c t fvBty . . . i t is more ingenious, i n t h a t i t encoura5p;es - . . a v a r i e t y of approaches , . . it r e s i s t s tke n a t u r a l tendency toward the c e n t r i p e t a l - - Szatfon of power i n goverm-ent, v~hfch i s the prime h i s t o r i c a l oTprcssor . . . p t a l t c s i n the original].32
But when a c o - ~ z t r y ~ s economy converts from one of l o c a l and
r e g i o n a l d i f fere : i t i&t ion t o one of na t iona l i n t e g r a t i o n and
h o m o g e n i z ~ t i c ~ , fro= one of atomized farms t o ono of con-
glomerated i ~ d u s t r $ e s , what does the pragmattst d o ? I t
would seem ho does r a t h e r much what P.rnericans have done
for t he pas t ninety years. I n h l s paste-and-patch, s i f t -
a n d - f i l l manner, he deals wi th the problem where h e f i n d s
i t , i.e., on a n o r e abs t rac ted l e v e l of operat ion, t r y i n g
h i s bes t under the cfrcumstancos t o s u s t a i n the n a t i ~ n a l
charac ter . Decentraiizcition as an a r t i c l e of f a i t h meta-
norphoses, i n t h o new context, i n t o a r i g i d aprior ism, a
c ~ t o g o r i c a l ax:ox tha t d e f i e s common sense. I n the
E l o ~ t ~ o ~ * i c Aga, tho bbstract iveness of Americans may have
t o c l a sh w i t h t h e i ~ accu~torr~ed modes of case-or ienta t ion;
the "break-the-taboo" f a c e t of case-concern may have t o
take p r e c c d e n c ~ over what w q s , a century ago, the appropri-
a t e type cf A n e ~ i c a n accommcdation. A s n unique, localized
46
phenomenon, the "case," Americans have seen, has long ago
l e f t the small town.
An attempt has been made in t h i s chapter t o pin-
point the ex te rna l l i n i t a t i o n s and obs tac les f ac ing t h e
persuader who, p a r t i c u l a r l y t h ~ o u g h t h e newspaper and on
t e l e v i s i o n , addresses a conglomerate audience. This has
been attempted throug! the concept of the un ive r sa l
American audience in fe r red from t h e work of Chaim Perelman.
F o l l o w i i ~ g PereLnznts suggest ion t h a t " the st u2y of audiences
could ~ l s o be o. s tudy for sociology. . . ," the inves t i -
gator has i d e n t i f i e d the pa t te rned i n c l i n a t i o n s , values,
mores, and exgeetat ions of Americans. He has accomplished
t h i s aim through a d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s of the evolu t ion o f
cu l tu res . llankind, i t was shown, has evolved, f i r s t of a l l ,
from what cno car, c a l l an "assoc ia t iven o r f r i e n d l y mode
of response t o an "abs t rac t ive t t OF bus iness l ike a t t f t u d e
i n inte-personal d e a g i n ~ s . That is , i n p r imi t ive comun-
% t i e s peop le r s i ~ t e t o one another i n t e r n s of i n t r i n s i c
~ ~ T S O ~ O O ~ , on the basis of face-to-face int imacies , o r
a s s o c f a t i ~ n s . There i s , o r was i n these cu l tu res , a l s o ,
l i t t l s d i f f e r e ~ ~ t i a t i o n of funct ion , hence scant need f o r
one t o t r e a t another not a s a first-name acquaintance, but
r a t h e r as a r o l e .
47
Gradual ly human s o c i e t i e s enlarged, d i f f e r en t i a t ed
occupationally, and comingled, generating Sn t h e process
ambiguous s igna l s , which were reconci led b y abs t rac t ion
throu& cod i f i ca t fon of r u l e s . Citfzens i n these more
advanced s o c i e t i e s grew t o regard t h e i r fellows, by
necess i ty , more i n terns of what they d i d , l e s s i n terms
of w h a t t h e y were, in and of themselves-America becoming
the most h1@-4y evolved cu l tu re , the eonsmmately abs t r ac t -
i v e , funct i on-cbseased c fv i l f z a t i on . These developments
have rendered Amricans unemotional, open t o r e l a t i onsh ip s
with s t r angers and ever, those unfr iendly t o them, and
dedicated t o t he even-handed r u l e of law.
Socie t f es have developed In another important
manner a l so . They have gone from obsession with universal
pr inc ip les , r u l e s , and taboos, handed down f r o m f a t h e r t o
son, to concern f o r the case a t hand and the evidence of the
senses. They have ~ o v e d from an enslavement t o t he t r a d i -
t i o n a l t o an apprec ia t ion of t h e p r ac t i c a l . Inmndoct r in-
a i r e America, p~econceived not ions give way t o f a c t s ,
s t rong b e l l e f s desolvs i n t o t o l e r a t i o n , words yie ld t o
r e a l l t L e s , T k s r e f o ~ e p o l i t i c a l p a r t i e s remain few and
unideological .
The ques t ion was ra i sed whether o r not the in -
charac ter c a s ~ - c r f e n t a t e d response of Americans t o present-
day industpin: iztsgratkon axpresses i t s e l f i n t h e c a l l f o r
t r a d i t i ona i decentral ized daci sion-naking. It was argued
tha t American p r a p a t i s m is more e s sen t i a l l y evinced
throu@;h "doing what needs t o b e done," deal ing with
n a t i o n a l problems a t the n a t fona l level when l o c a l so lu -
t i o n s do no t work, regardless of what t r a d i t i o n prescribes.
INTRODUCTION
I n the 2receoding chapter t he invcs t fe ;a tor com-
p l e t ed t h e second step i n t h e c r i t i c a l process, t h e de t e r -
xzinat i o n of the "milieu, " t h e ' l e x t r i n s i c elements-the
e x t o r n a l l im9tac lons , c o n s t r a i n t s , o r i n f luences on the
r h e t o r i c i a n o s choices ," the I f . , . obstacles t h a t prevent
the au tho r from accomplishing h i s purpose. . . . st The s p e c i f i c questions the c r i t i c nus t now raise
a r e these : given the q u a l i t y of his r h e t o r i c , i s Buckleyta
thought, is Buckleyrs demeanor, a r e Buckleyts s tandard man-
euvers l i k e l y t o move t o b e l i e f and t o a c t i o n t hose nur-
t u red i n t h e Anglo-&-merican c u l t u r e , t h e u n i v e r s a l
Americsn audience? Do h i s thought, h i s demeanor, and his
c h a r a c t o ~ i s t L c a p p e a l s r e f l e c t t h e va lues , expec ta t ions ,
and mores of f incricans3 Do they d o v e t a i l w i t h t h o c u l t u r -
a l l y pa t te rned f~clinations of people reared i n the United
S t a t e s ? And t h e r e f o r e a r e Americans l i k e l y t o i d e n t i f y
wi th these vfcws and modes, and in them see themselves
rof l e c t e d ?
49
50
Fortn:tously, i n the case of Buckley's r h e t o r i c ,
the i n v e s t i g a t o r , i n answering t h e s e ques t ions , w i l l have
implemented also the t h i r d s t ep i n the c r i t i c a l p rocess ,
the " i n t e r p r e t s t i v o ana lys i s . " For the crait&an by w h i c h
he can i n t e p p r e t u t i v e l y judge Buckley ' s work is t h e a tand-
ard suggssted by t h e s e remarks :
. e T;?e pooplo a re , though i n f i n i t e l y manipu- l a b l e , inpoavib ly feck less - in t h e i r o m p e c u l i a r way, conse rvz t ive . l
The beauty o f New York i s th rea tened by the schematic dosip9a upon i t of t he s o c i a l a b s t r a c t i o n i s t a who do n o t look u? f ~ o m t h e i r d ~ a w i n g hoards long enough t o r e c o g n f z s ~ ~ i ; l a t i t i s t h a t makes f o r human attachments- t o l i t t l e b u i l d i n g s and shops, t o a r ens of repose and e x c i t e n e n t ; 'co a l l those [elornentsj t h a t so g r e a t l y inconvenienca the b ig- th ink s o u i a l p lanners .2
%at t h e Sonnte did [when i t guarsnteod jury t r i a l s i n c i v i l ~ f g h t s cssosj was t o leave undis turbed t h e mechanism t h a t spans t h e a b s t r a c t i o n s by which a s o c i e t y is p i d e d and the a c t u a l , sublunary r e q u i r e - ments of tho i n d i v i d u a l communit . I n t h a t sense t h e vo te was a eonsorvatfve v i c t o r y . 3
- . [ O U ~ i n s t i t u t i o n s lard dominated by J a c o b i n i c e l a b s t r a c t i o n s about equaPity.4
I I n these passages , Buckley i n d i c a t e s the t e r n s on
I which the c r i t i c should t ake him, t h e touchstone by which
I t h e a n a l y s t ou&t t o measure t h o re levance of his rhe to r f c .
I Does Euckley hinsa3.f undars tand and r e f l e c t t h e va lues and
I riiores of t heso 'Y@msex~vat ive ' ' American c i t i z e n s , i n con.-
I trast t o the i r i ' r e c S i c a l and unconprehend i n g " a b s t r a c t ion-
I ists," wbo supposedly do ns,b understand t h e na tu re , needs,
I and a s p i r a t i o n s o f tho American people? Is , a s he himself
impl ies , tho r h e t o r i c of William Buckley i n consonance w i t k i
51
or r e f l e c t i v e o f , t h e Amerdican c h a r a c t e r ?
In th i s cSapter , based as i t i s on the analysis i n
Chapter 3, f t w f l l be shown t h a t Buckley does no t r e f l e c t
the value3 and mores of Americans, even those of the con- E s e r v a t i v o businsssman;~ t h a t he does no t understand t h e
nature, needs, and aspLra t ions of his people; t h a t h i s
r h e t o r i c i s n o t iri eoneonance w i t h the American character ;
t h a t he i s a t 5122es obl fvfous o f , a t o t h e r t imes scornful
of , the f w . . i S j ~ b l e " l i l l i i t a t f o n ~ p n "cons t r a in t s , f t and "ob-
s tac les" t h ~ z , IE A n o ~ i c a , "prevent the au tho r from accom-
p l i s h i n g his p ~ r p o s e ' ' ; that Buckley i s , In h i s r h e t o r i c ,
c u l t u r a l l y c r z h z i z , These d i s l o c a t i o n s and d iscordanc ies
may h e dencnstrated by desc r ih fng and i l l u s t r a t E n g f i r s t
t h e ssaoc ia t ive-emot iona l , then the associative-relational-
mds tached , cad f l ~ a l 3 . y the un ive r sa l -o r i en ted , elements f n
t h e Buckloy ~het o r i c ,
l ~ ~ o r s o v e r , S t nay be i n f e r r e d that because t h e cul-
t u r s l disloca:fons 2n his r h e t o r f c a r e so muPtffarfous and
pronounced, EuckYey does not l i k e l y make conver ts , in sig-
p-if 1cay-t i~at2pf - L bo h l s brand of conservat9sm.
w-- ,,lo rl tzr:? a r ~ ! ~ a L c , as used here , does not Involve
d?ed@ing up t k o r zs ted i n s f g h t about a l a i s s e z - f a i r e
I l b e r t a r i a n in a n e r a of m i x e d econor~ly, It r e f e r s t o a
t i m e l a p s e r-szac.;t n o t in decades , bu t r a t h e r i n cent.i~Fis.
BxckSey is , c u l i - u ~ a l l y , I fke a s ix teen th century Englishmm,
o r a n inc teentk cantury Con t inen ta l Eurspaan, i n a
52
twentieth cc3.i;tury c'~moric&n n l l i eu . 9 e is sixteenth century
in that his psychological -emot ional involvement r e f l e c t s a
mode of responso '&T C ~ preda t e s t he science of Gal i leo and
Newton and the ornpfricaP phi losophies they I n s p i r e d . He I s
European i n t ? a t his responses t end toward t he a s s o c i a t f v o
and his t h e o r i z a t i o n s toward the u n i v e r s a l and the c a t e -
I Buckley V s emot iona l engagement and a s s o c i a t i v e
I a t t i t u d e s ape considered f i r s t , The r e a d e r w i l l r e c a l l
t h e re ferenea r;e, how man has evolved cu5tura l . ly f?om
as socPa t iva "c o b s t ~ s c t i v e In h i s modes of r e l a t i o n s h i p ,
I Rmeri cans be ins the most role-conscf ous people on e a r t h ,
Noted, too , wara the ? r o t e s t a n t h e r i t a g e , the d r y tempera-
ment, and t h o t e r t i a r y s i g n i f i c a n c e a s s i p e d t h e emotions
i n the phiiloso2hy t h a t has shaped them. One can now
appra i se t h e c u ~ 3 ~ a l a t i v e impact of t h e s e h a b i t s of mind .
The abstractivansss of DD~,erfcana--'ln this context, t h e i r
i n c l i n a t i o l ? $ 3 da tach fyom the i d e n t i t y of someone bPs in-
tplinsic peYsorkood s ~ d t o r e g a r d him as a function-aould
make them f n end sf itself a p rope r p e o p l e . For Americans,
bus ines s 1 s b u u i n ~ ~ s . They do not disclose t h e l r true
fee l lngs on tks $ s h e
Eat t h f s tendenoy t l i o i r P r o t e s t a n t o r i g i n s have
Thz s.ost r a d i c a l Reformers were a t t h e very
ou t so t h o s t i l e t o t h e emot iona l - ae s the t i c element i n Roman
~ a t h o l i c i s m , f o r dogmatic reasons . The moving ceremony of
t h e Mass, the $motive s t a t u a r y , the stained-glass beauty of
the cathedrals were thought a k ind of i d o l a t r y . Church
should be a p l a c e and t h o , ins tead , f o r a dour s ea rch ing
of the soul and f o r a c e r e b r a l e x p l i c a t i o n of t h e Scr iptures .
Fee l ing was, for the C a l v i n i s t o r Nonconformfst, a kind of
s t a t i c elofig the mires o f s p i r i t u a l c o r r s n u n i ~ a t i o n , ~ John
Locke ts c a t e ~ o r i s s were m a d e t o o r d e r f o r this type of
f a i t h . The xental substance was equated w i t h t h e soul; t h e
i s o l a t e d Protestaxi: was r e in fo rced in h i s convictfon t h a t
God spoke t o hL.n d f r a c t l y , th r sugn the B i b l e a ~ d t h roush
t h e Voice inside, n o t through outward "appearance"; and the
doc t r ina l . k r r e l s v m c e of a e s t h e t i c i s m was provided supple-
mentary su?por t . Re l ig ion , philosophy, and c u l t u r a 1 pred5 -
p o s i t i o n - a l l c o a l s s c c d t o make the Anglo-American one a
P u r i t a n i c a l sociacy indeed. Americans a b s t r a c t from the
business a t hand t h a t which t hey are not very good a t ex-
p r e s s i n g anywhy-feeling*
In c l L I L pjf this) what does Buckley i n s t ezd pro-
clal-rr;? R e ars.cm.cau in one passage t ha t ". . * m y enerr.7
' id L , Core ' J i d c l u "' 3verL fn za t aphor , t h i s i s , f o r an
Anoricnn, a2chz ic lang~zage. He laments t h a t the word
tttruthv~ ras, I n OI.T centwy, grown a t a v ~ s t i c . ~ However,
"enenyq' i s , i n 'she con tex t , for more inter,sely d a t e d when
I t agpl.ied, on tk-e j ob , " t o a mere i d e o l o g i c a l opponent.
An o b s e ~ v e r m i g h t ask , also, where these views f i t ,
i n twen t i e th c o n t u ~ y America?-
But a n o t 5 s ~ f a c t o r t h a t r n i l t t a t e s a g a i n s t purposive d f s c o u r s s is the developing taboo f b s - t on s t r o n g op in ions , sccond cn t h e i r exp res s ion in r e l e n t l e s s lan.guaze, O w 3 is beconing a land of l o t u s e a t e r s , t h e g a t e s $0 vik; i~h a r e guarded by t h e dragons I have descr ibed . The tendency, t h e s e days , i s t o y i e l d t o the pass foc f o r modulation, Even i n l i t e r a t u r e , one d o e s n o t o f t e n f i n d oneself concerned with k i n s s and h a v e s , f a i ~ m f d a n s mC! h e r o e s o t r e a c h e r y and honor, r i ~ h t an,: wren;:; m e spenks i n greys , and muted hues, o f s o c i . ~ l p?ob l ans , and l i f e adjustment , and co- ex1 ste;:cz 2:: i n ' c e ~ c r e d n f . ami ty , Increas ing ly , vre a r e ccLlad il-jolz t c no5u'iate our voices, Increas ing ly , t h e convc~tfcx of t a c t b r i n g s u s t o modulate no t only o u r vo i ce s , b u t n l s o o u r d o g a s .
. . ~ Y O Y . U 4 4 0 . Y . 0 u . * . . . * . . i o * , . I suspect diplomacy has got o u t of hand.
Buckley seems o b l i v i o u s of t h e f a c t t h a t t h c ~ e i s no wag
c o n t e m p o r a r ~ Americans can, i n t h e g e n e r a l i t y , possess
s t r o n g l y he ld vPe~vs. C i l l t u r a l p r e s s u r e s preclilde i t . Not
only does i t ssem Amerfoans can express t h e i r f e e l i n g s but
moderately. Not on ly a r e t h e y s o compulsively p o l i t e ,
when f u n c t i o n c a l l s . But they a r e , in acidit ion, too
p l ~ r a l i s t i c , t e o case-or ien ted , t oo p ~ a g m a t i c t o own such
opknions fn the first place . They have d i f f i c u l t y f e e l i n g
s t r o n g l y a b m t people, l e t a lone sweeping ideas,
7- ., ~ L I c L ~ ~ c ~ feels. Iie f e e l s i n o r d i n a t e l y intensely:
To c a l l ih; ~ ; ~ e c t e s t genius who e v e r live3[3ach] an " o i d , doad pur-i,:," t h a l e a s t of whose canta3as w i l l . d o nlore t o e i e v a t c i ; h ~ ku~?:an s p i r i t than a l l the b lack s tudent un ions 5ern and unborn, i s n o t s o much contemptible a s p i t f a b l e : conducive of t h a t kind of s e p a r a t i o n one f e s l s f q q m aniinals, r a t h e ~ than f rom other human beings,
FIG-.^ k i i ~ , fist t h e tyrants jcommunista] everyhere : but do not ns l i tlnam t o your quar ters , merely t o s p i t Upon them: and do no t ask them to your quarters if you can- riot spft zlpon them . e . . 12
Like Negroes who disparage Bach, communists would appear ,
i n t h e Buckley vLew, ha rd ly human:
The Comunlst . . . has renounced the bond . . . he cannot spcak t o us, and we cannot spoak t o h l m , be- cause however deep-we roach , w e cannot f i n d a common ~ o c a b u l s i - y . . a 13
I think 0 5 a g r e a t Chr is t ian grayer , serene, b e a t i f i c , bu t b s f o ~ s I t is quits over , we f i n d o u r s a l v e s asking our 86aker t s be so t h o u & t f u l as t o " c a s t i n t o h e l l A bhose e v i l s p i r + i t a [oom.~nis%s] who roam tprough ?hne world s e c k $ n ~ D the des t ruc t ion of sou 1s .'I
Even t h e obvsrvo of our a u t h o r ' s pa s s ion b e t r z y s th i s cu l -
t u r a l estrangomant: "ifir%.y Ga l b r a i t h - h a t i n g Is an Imposs ib le
~ c t i v i t ~ , " l ~ 3uckley t i t l e s a book review. One asks him-
s e l f who e l s e would remark s u c h a "quandary,"
TEE ASSOCIATIVE-PaTATIONAL-UNDETACHED STRAIN I N THE BUC.KL= RHETORIC
More profoundly associative-1 .e ., archaic- than
h i s b l u n t n e s s and hf s emotionalism is Buckleyl s i n a b i l i t y
t o prescind frcx:a the whole person the r o l e he plays . The
reader w i l l 1 -eczl l ths sy1lo;;fsm wdsth which 3uck ley tamts
r:qz~ 3 o a s o v ~ l t , Ths for;cr,or First Lady had shaken the hand
02 Sov ie t d~ci'aa5sador Andre Vishinsky while b o t h of them
wera d e l e s z t e s t~ the Unf t a d Nat ions . She mainta ined, none-
t h e l e s s , th t ske could n o t have s o p e e t e d Adolph H i t l e r
l P a f t e r he had 3 e 9 n l?fs mass k i l l i n g s . " Because the
Russian was g u i l t y of mess murders a lso , "V.l?s. Roosevel t t a
l a c k of intellectual r igor l l i s evident , Buckley assor t s .
9 e then asks this questton:
What ----- cm113 sha havo been t ry ing t o sag? T h a t there were d i f ' f oi?si?cos between Hf t l o r and Vishinsky of the type one takes stock of f o r e ex tending one 's hand I t a l i c s i n the o r ig ina l l ?
I t would appear t h a t i s p r e c i s e l y what she was
t r y i n g t o say, an3 with good roason ,
To Segtn with, t h e term " g u i l t y " must, i n f a c t ,
connote pa lpab ly diffs~ont shadings wi th raeFerence t o I-Iltler
and Mr. Vf shinslq7, The Ambassador, a f m c t l o n a r y , though
no doubt gcf 'ltg i n a s u j s t a n t i v e sense of t h e ~vord , was
n o t near ly so cu lpab l e a s Germany's Fuhrer, the supreme
~ u t h o r i t y of bfs na t ion , nn a l l -powerfu l d i c t a t o r who could
a t w i l l e x t i n g u i s h o r preserve the l i v e s of m i l l i o n s with-
ou t secur ing the consent of o t h e r p a r t i e s . Though one does
n o t hold IMP, Buckley r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a l l t h a t appears in the
magazine he sdl%s, one can n o t e Nat iona l Reviev~rs tender,-
t i o u s l y diff e rcn t ~ t t i t u d s toward Adolf E f chmann, Tlne p a r t
ESchann p l ~ g e d i n the mass s l a u g h t e r of Jews was rou t ine ,
me@hsaicaL t5k21?a 1, "17
pip I , 2s not 'to exculpate IJiI, Vishinslcy from his
pa ten t sins. It is rather t o a f f i r m t h a t one can, i f one
the - of coursc s of o ~ e I s c u l t u r e - r a t i o n a l l y t o d i s t i n , p i s 5
between the f m ~ c t i e c a r y aad the policy-maker in quest ions of
57
national turpitude. It i s a distinction buckle^' 3 ~ ~ -
~ o g ~ ~ n fails t o make f o r what appear t o be reasons of'
self-intsrest and c u l t u r a l misunderstanding,
More Lrnportant and more pertinent to the issue of
how DTrs, Rooscvelt ought to r ece ive a fel low delegate t o
the U n i t e d Nations is the query, how do Americans na tu r a l l y
behave i n such a context? The answes?: they shake hands.
I t i s genuinely "un-American," t o borrow a pe jo ra t ive from
a l e g i s l o t l v s :omi t t ee of which Buakley is most fond,l8
t o permit nusocintivs an t i pa th i e s t o overr ide regard f o r
funct ion, especially when the funct ion i n question-here
Xrs. Rooseveltgs-coincides exac t ly w i t h t h a t of the f igure
a t issue, and p a r t i c u l a r l y when these opera t ives f i l l t o -
gether the r o l e o f peace emissary, To r e i t e r a t e : the
i nc l i na t i on t o make funct ion-centered d i s t i n c t ions, t o re-
move from aonskderatLon, a t work, i r r e l evan t data , i s called
"abstract iveness," and it c h a ~ a c t e r i z e s the most highly
evolved cult-meso
Cont:-srg t o the d i c t a t e s of his cu l t u r e and by the
exampho sf h l s r h e t o r i c , Buckley contends that one should
not a b z t ~ a c t a Ono shou ld r a t h e r s eek to b e "a man t o t a l l y
ofi,;zGed q'19 Y k e cclu~-ir;f s t a s s a i l s Cardinal Cooke of New
york for bsinc* , 7" . . , photogaphod speaking amicably t o the
l e a d e ~ of the i ~ e a York S t a t 4 Assembly t ha t passed the
abortion S i ll a few months before, "20 He a t t a cks Pres ident
Xixon f o r having ". toas ted Chairman Mao, Chou E n - h i ,
the whole l o t cf themr1 during t2e h i s t o r i c China
tr~3.p. 21 Hs ba lks a t the thought, back i n the l a t e 1950's,
t h a t a f i l e Iihrushchev . . w i l l walk the f loom
trod by Washington and Jef ferson, and sleep in Lincoln 's
so d i s q u i e t i n g is that prospect f o r the ed i t o r t ha t
he entreats h i s ~ e a d s r s t o c o v e r the country with s t i c k e r s
proc l& iming 'sE:ku.rrshchev Bo t We Pcome Eere" ( "PET THEM
EVEHYilmRE . " ) , 2 3 beseeches Wcw Yorkars t o make the
P r e n i e r l s two days i n .&?ne%r c i t y ". . . the most enbarrass-
i n g and uncomfor t s3 la . . . he ever s p e n t , " conducts a
contes t arouild 'eke question "What t o Do '$&en Khrushchev
Comes t o R e w ~ o r k , " ~ ~ acd publishes as the top- l i s t ed en t ry
t h i s admonition: "Kill the bastard."25 He and h i s magazine
despai r over V&n Clfburnb ~ ~ O S C O V J t ~ f u m ~ h , ~ 6 admonf sb t h a t
the audience no t s t a n d f o r the playing of t h e Soviet
na t iona l anthem bef ope a hloiseyoa Dance Company performa~ce
a t tho l~?i!etn?opolitan Opera ' h i o ~ s e , ~ ~ and lament Andrei
Cromykofs nt tenc 'anoe a t John Fos te r Dullest s funeral.28
Note shalld be taken, toc , of w h a t dumfounds
HS ?$array Xc;~_nta12- has no tlnoubfe a t a l l mixing easily w i t h "Lioze ?:'box %he next morning he vrf ll berate with a pass iona te v i l t ,29
T b w a 2s ci wonderful amPabilPty amng Englishmsn of conflic'c?,;?~ p a X i 5 i c a l f a i t h s which, f o r an American [so Buckley fua4sj , i s s t p a n ~ a and nrresona. . . In Englsnd one cars liws ~ n s ~ a l t s at; a man in Far'ifament o r i n the press, todsy , and tornorlrow serve as godfather t o his c h i l d , a a
T11e Engl i sh ca r ry !.t too fa^, t o b e sure . On the
day I mot i:L%h the galaxy [of journalists: I descr ibed , Jacob Enl f l c -.vas cn te r t a inLng a t t h e ~ o v $ e t Embassy, a b r i l l i a n t a f f a i r c u l e b r a t f n g what t h e bourgeois p r e s s of t h o v ~ o ~ l d p c r s f s t s i n c a l l i n g the Russian Revolut ion; and s u r e enough, e x a c t l y one yea r a f t e r the B r i t i s h dfi3lonstic x r p s . . . had r e fused t o take t e a st the Sovie t Zmbassy p a r t y as a p r o t e s t a g a i n s t the r a p e of Eungary, t h e r e they were-all o f thex, frorri Sekvyn Ll tyd on down, beaming away .so
Again, a s In the "CanqtHate Ga lb ra i th" a r t i c l e , the
oxpos i to r must ea il a t t c n t Ion-as though such behavior
were, i n A ~ o r T c a , unique-to the " t rans- ideo log ica l
decenciles" which chn?a\=ter ize his r e l a t i o n s h i p with a
l i b e r a l l a d y w i t h vii~srn he cor responds .31 Buckley a c t s
m ~ c h l i k s tine L ~ t i n American o r "Old Country" businessman
who finds i t anomalous t o s h a r e off-hour f r i e n d s h i p s w i t h
a competf tsr That is t o say, he polemicizes l i k e one.32
On the quoatl.on of whether co l l ege alumni should
suppor t t h e i r Alma Eater , Buckley i s sfmf l a r l y a s s o c l a t i v e
and coun te r - cu l tu ra l . Alumni should underwr i te t h e 1 r
Former s choo l s n o t because of a l l t h a t t h e s e i n s t i t u t i o n s
have done f o r them, Buckley ~ f f e r s . Thefr benef icence
should r e q u i r e a n ex t ra f i l l i p , i.e., a p r e f e r e n t i a l
a d m i s s i o n s po l r eg wi th respect t o alumni 0 f f s ~ r i n ~ . 3 ~ The
cotri::enta torf s thlriking appe=s t o take a n a b s t r a c t i v e t u r n
in t12a 11" ,s 1.- - l l l u c ; ; & ------" viewu he publ ished whi le running f o r msm-
ber sh lp i n t h o Y a l o Corporation. 'j?ll?y isng't the d e b t one
owes f o r what a partfc.u; ler u n i v e r s i t y bestowad on h i m
". . . repayable t o the Cause of Righer Educntfon . . . tr34
In general, ha as:-:s r a t h e r t h a n to , say, Yale, which J
60
r e a l l y needs the funds a t i s s u e f a r l e s s than Tuskegee?-
if, t h a t is, Y a l e does n o t promis6 t o g r a n t one's own son
o r daughter s p e c l a 1 cons ide ra t ion . The aui;hentttcally
abstractive a t t k kudo would, howevor, r e q u i r e one more s t o p :
the debt one owes would b e ". . . repayable t o the Cause o f
Higher E d u c a t i o n . . ." I n g e n e r a l no matter what admis-
s i o n s ' s t a n d a r d s o n e s s co l l ege would adopt . A 8 i t s t a n d s ,
Sucklsy ' s nrgunent is associative: family f i r s t .35
T?I% UXIVEISSAL ORIENTATION I N m JTT . A I L 3UCKLEY H H E T O R I C
A s t o t h e o the r p o l a r i t y , mankind has moved, a s has
been indlca t e d , frcm a preoccupat ion with u n i v e r s a l r u l e s
and principles t o a concen t r a t ion upon p a r t i c u l a r cases ,
the consunzmntely e i tua t ion -cen te red culture being t h a t of
the United S t a t e s . But i n charging Buckley w i t h unive~.sal -
ism, t he present w r i t e r n u s t recount that t h e Indictment
r e s t s , 5.n part, o n the assumption t h a t American s o c i e t y and
the s o l u t i ~ n s t o its problems, such as they a r e , have
r a d i c a l l y chi2gsdO I n d i v l d u a l i s n and d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n ex-
y r o s s e d tho f;iks~er,t c h a r a c t e r of this na t ion when i t was
young. I n s v;~'i;, u ~ d o r p o p u l a t e d , a g r a r i a n s o c i e t y , case-
c ; ? i e n t a t i o n xer;n"clocal, ul~coordinatedl d e c i s i o n - ~ a k i n z .
The country aas rsgLonalfzed, its people were s e p a ~ a t e d ,
i t s difficulties w e r e p a r t i c u l a r i z e d , t o an e x t e n t one can
s c a r c e l y inagine t o d s y . Bu t America's troubles a r e no t
p a r t l t i o n s d q u i t e s o d i s c r e t e l y i n the twent ie th century .
They d o n o t spend tk~.omselves a t t h e p o i n t whore t h e i n d l -
v i d u a l and t h o lccal comunft ty i n t e r s e c t . As unique
phonomenn, amenable t o a localized s o l u t i c n and no o the r ,
t hey went f o r t h from t h e provinces , it has been mainta ined,
a hundred y e a r s ago. The I n d u s t r i a l Revold t ion and i t s
accompanying t r s r i ~ f o r n ~ a t l o n s - t h e d i v i s i o n of l a b o r , t h e
i n c r e a s e i n popula t fon , t h e growth of technology, t h e head-
long raixif l c a x o n and i n t e g r a t i o n of a l l economic and S Q C ~ ~
rePation33ips-have r e l o c a t e d " the case .* That t h i s is t h e
i s s u e Buckleg acknowledgas:
ArZ wc 5s fiat the machine? Can conservat ism assirn2la-LC Zt? iYlc"nittaker C h a m S ~ ~ s once wrote m e t h a t "the rock corn oP t h e Conservative P o s i t i o n can be he ld r r ; a l l : ; t 5ca l i y o n l y i f Conservat ion w i l l accomo- d a t e i t s e l y o t h o needs and hopes of t he masses- neods and h o p o s which l i k e t ho masses t hemePves , a re the product of machines." e . 0 . * . . . * 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . .
'ilhat f o r ~ l s mis t th is a c c o m o d a t i o n taka? - The n o l f ~ r c Z-..-I stc.teE i s t h e non-Coxmunist answer one mostly h e a r s . 1: is cecessnj-y, we a r e t o l d , t o comprehend the interdepon2enze o f l i f e i n a n i n d u s t r i a l s o c i e t y , and tha s o c f a l consequences of any a c t i o n b y a s i n s l e p a r t of' I t , or, o t h e r p a r t s . Let t h e s t e e l workers go on s t r i k e , 2 r ~ 3 spark-p lcg salesmen v ~ i l l i n dua course be o u t o f vioA-I~. There z z s t be Paws t o mi. t l g a t e t h e help- Less:?css of t h e i n d i v f d u a l l i n k i n t h e i n d u s t r i a l cha in t h ~ 2 t 3 a rc,achRne h a s built. U * O ~ ~ * . C O . O + . u e . e e 4 C . * * P . ~ O --
L ~ L ~ G G ~ , Tfio machine must be accep ted , and consarv- zt'i,cTl;s iifil:c rot , l i v e by programs t h a t w o w @ v ~ r i t t s n as thou$- C 3 i ;-:icSino d5.d no t ex1 s t , o r could be made t o go zr:a.;yr: ;7h~+; ; 3 the p r o p e ~ klnd of r e s l i s m . The b i g q ~ e a tiac :-U ~::r,c';hcr t h e e s s e n t i a l planics of conserv- a t i s m r;c:; , ,r,a,-.h~~onized by the machine; the b i g answer 5.3 t h t t 1 , ~ j :i.r13i?e noc . "Those who remain I n t h e world, i F t k eg will n o t surrent9er on i t s ternis, must maneuver ~~"Jithin Li-8 Z E T I : ~ S ;says 1qr. Chambers]. That is what C o n s e ~ v a ~ i v c s mutt d e c i d e : how much t o g ive i n o r d e r t o
su rv ive a t all; l i c w nuch t o give 5.n orde r no t t o r i v e up the b a s i c p r i n c i p l e s b t a l i c s i n the 0 r i ~ f n a l ] . ~ ' 3 6
But r e c o g ~ i z i n g the ques t ion and looping t o an
u n s u p p o ~ t o d conclusion ( I t . . . t he b i g answer is t h a t they
wore n o t t ' ) do r iot , by thomuelves, ndoquatoly den1 with t h o
new r e a l i t y . Without f u r t h e r demonstrat ion, such a b a l d ,
t r a d i t i o n a l i s t demurrer h a r d l y shows t h e pragmatic American
where he can now, LYI t h e e r a of "interdependence," g e t hold
of t h e "case .?'
Hov~evar o m r e s o l v e s f o r h imself t h e i s s u e of v~here,
i n contempors~; P:msr'J.ca, t he "caseg9 l f e s , Buckley's f n f a t u -
a t i o n ~ 1 1 t h "prFricfplest ' cannot be ga insa id :
. . . Truths, t h o g~,rc~& dogmas of t he West, a r e t o t a l l y unchanged . . . .
. . . The American Right i s based . . . on the assumption t h a t some ques t ions a r e c losed . . . .38
The alms of educa t ion a r c t o forward knowledge and r i g h t conbuct-at tho expenso of some p o i n t s of v i ew . a . Aczdemic freedom i s conceived as a pe r - manent instrurrient of d o c t r i n a l e g a l i t a r i a n i s m ; i t i u always t h e r s t o remind us t h a t me can never horn any- th ing fop a - a m : vlhick I view a s another way of s ay ing w e carnot r e a l l y know what a r e t h e aims of educa t ion . . e u
Schools ought not t o be n e u t r a l . School should no t TOC COG^ s z though the wisdom of our f a t h e r s mere t o o ter,tz";(ve t o s c r v e a s a n educat lor?al base . . . Certafn g:>ezt 'ci3il'ihs have been app~shsndsd. I n the f i e l d 03' ~ i i o ~ g l i t y , c l l the b a s i c t ru ths have Seen spprshcnded , . :Students should be taught to7 gPve their alle. ; isnce - t o the g r e a t c e r t i t u d e s of t he vuest . . . .S9
A s one mfght expect f r o n the above, th is t h e o r i s t abhors
I t h e " e p i s t e m s l ~ g i c a l skep t ic i sm of M i ll, and Holmes , and
Sewey-~nd R s r s s y Clarku ; the " i d s o l o g i c a l t oo th l e s snes s t '
So f a r as axe can see f x r n a v e r y quick survey o k i ~ d o f l a c ; s l ~ t i o n the Amendment [to ban "any d i i ~ s t i a n c!;~a"i;oever based on sex'g would inconveni
f t he scrim- ence,
of m i g h t Eiserhswor; and the "soul-free," "grea t accommo-
dator , " "weather vanevf s t a t e c r a f t of John ~ e n n e d ~ . ~ ~ Their
pronouncements w o u l d seem f l a c c i d when placed beside t h e
Buckley r h e t o r i c , whe~e ; th.o t ' l m u t a b l e pos tu la te s , " the
"s trong opinions," and the changeless "dognas" march by
with r e g u l a r i t y ,
Not 0 ~ 1 y does the conservat ivef s langiage sound
"relent less" ; hris proposals i n t h e i r substance tend toward
the implacab13 ~ i i c ! th8 c a t e g o r i c a l a l so :
It eonss d a n r t o t h i s : e i t h e r the United S t a t e s uses i t s reaourccjs t o k e l p o the r count r ies [here, South ~ i e t n a m ; r o s i s t c ~ ~ u n i z a t i o n , o r e l s e i t does not . l l
Tiere is another example of t h e "e i ther -or f a l l acy" :
!hJall--afic? o f course i t i s obvious t h a t he [president ~ i x o n ] d c e a n ~ t d e s i r e unemploynent, I f i t had been a t ~ a l n e a e c o n o m i s t of the Keynesian school who was there , lie d havs r ep l i ed t o ~y counter-question: "Because ?J ixon adopts old-fashioned remedles f o r curb ing i n f l a t i o n , " Counter-question: "'\i:hat a r e ne\vfanc,led ~ s ~ , ? s d i e ~ f o r curbing i n f l a t i o n ? " To wkl ck: the only appropr ia te answer 93: a t o t a l i t a r i a n econo-ay, In f a c t , t he re is nothing i n between. 42
And an st he^:
1. "Lhink Tica Y o r k has ve t t o come to t e x m s with a " la rge ly pSLlosopLf c a l question: d o people have a "2i:j.ht:' ij ic ~ ~ b l . 3 , ~ t snnspor ta t ion? I f they d o , t hey ox;ht ' t o ~ ~ 2 . 6 ~ free. If they dsnvt, they ought t o 327 i ~ ; l q ~ t i J c ~ 0 ~ ' ~ s ~ This is a bas ic d i f f e rence - betttiaen ~ o ~ s s ~ ~ c r a t h v e s and l f b ~ r & l s . Do you pay for wk2t yz:i u s a ? I X B r n i n favor of paying.$3
3ucklsy c s r r 2 a s tha black-whf t e d l sjunct Ion t o inordina te
lengths i n p issage:
i t v ~ o u l c * ~ a s ; l l t 5.2 a t l e a s t the l o s s of as many s p e c i a l p r i v i l e g e s (e ,g . , alimony, ma te rna l l eave , p r o t e c t i o n a g a i n s t rape , s t @ . ) a s the l a d i e s would gain.44
TO Buckley, the Amendment would, i n e f f e c t , s a n c t i o n
p h y s i c a l a s s a u l t , That is, t h e a u t h o r e n j o i n s h i s fol low-
ing t o t r e a t a person a l t o g e t h e r l i k e a woman, o r a l t oge the r
l i k e a man, One ought n o t make an i n c o n s i s t e n t nccommoda-
t i o n t o d i f f e r e n c e s i n gender.
Lben v~han w r i t i n g of a Supreme Cowt c a n d i d a t e of
t h o c a l i b e r of Zapold Carswel l , Buckheyqs pas s ion f o r t h e
c a t e g o r i c a l l e t t e r remains undimb.isked:
. . . If r ~ ~ d i o c r i t y means t b t when you r e a d t h e t h e Constitu-Glen 2nd t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n s ays two p lus tno e q u a l s fc,-dr, 2nd you t h e r c f o r o r u l e t h a t two p l u s two e q ~ a l s f o ~ ~ , ra ther than r u l e t h ~ t i t depends on zvkie'che? you bad an unde rp r iv i l eged e d u c a t i o n a l background, then p r e c i s e l y what we need i s e. l i t t l e more m s d i ~ c r l ~ g ; and I f o r one hope PJr. Carswel l over- whelms the cour t with
I n o t h e r words, i n t e n t n o t be t h e
c r i t e r i o n , bu% r a t h e r l i t e r r ~ l meaning, This i s t h e ap-
more a r cha f c than t h a t of t h e Unlted
Pa~S;ps t h o n o s t t e l l i n g example O F B u c k l e y l a
unPva~saYist l :~c ' i i r ,a t ions i s t h i s a t t emp t t o h a r m s s t h e
* - r 3 . ..., 5 h o a l d au tonn te t he a c t of r e t z l i a t i o n - p r o c l s s l : ~ Tc orde'.. t o s f f ec tdde te r rence . How? By contrivl::g ; d l f -ssl;~i?ting devf c a s which w o ~ l l d respond im t s i~ t l y c ~ ~ L ~ a u t o m a t i c ~ ~ l l y t o a n u c l e a r b l a s t a ga fr.8 t ~3 ,40
It wouLd appear tha:; t h e s y l l o g i s t i c form i t s e l f
be t r ays a m l n d u b a s r b e d i n u n i v e r s a l c a t e g o r i e s . But i n
f a c t Buclcley adnlts t o such p roc l l fv i t5 . e~ . I n h i s column
"Chop Down That T ~ e e , ' ' t h e t h e o r i s t pledges his "allegiance
t o deduct ive reasoning."47 B u c k l e y seems t r o p i s t i c a l l y
b i a sed toward the r u l e , toward t h e taboo.
And t b e dynamics of t h e American p o l i t i c a l system
appear t o escape him, H e would purge t'ne Republican p a r t y
i n o r d e r t o malcz i t conserva t ive . R e would do so , f i r s t of
a l l , by SidCi5.n~ J'ohn Lindsay t o leave. Lindsey was, t o
Buckley, a rank " i n t e r l o p e r , '' "an embarrassment t o t h e two-
p a r t y sys tens ' o u t " t o unsex t h e Republican Par ty , " ''a
Republican l a r g e l y as a ma t t e r of bap t i smal af f i rmatf on. tr 48
Next, 3uclcley r i d i c u l e s Sena tor Jacob J a v i t s f risht
t o Republican p h r t y membership. H e quotes w i t h approbzt ion
George t o the e f f e c t t h a t . J a v i t s has about
as much businoss i n tho Republican Party a s Leon ~rotsk-y."49
Sona tor Goodell, too, i s a n impostor:
Tnsor'a:? n s ~ ~ ~ n t l c f i i e n wi th the v o t i ~ g r e c o r d of Char les Goodell s.,;ci=erjd, throuzh the nachii lat ions of p a ~ t y bcsses, 5.z l ~ ~ o s i n s themselvos a s reprmesontat fves of the IispxbXicar? 'arty in the Senets of t he united S t a t e s , 3.To:~.-30, L - A u L L 9s ressntment. Ressntxen'c by those who te l . leve ikia'c t h o Rsp'abl icaa Pa r ty 1s i n d i f f e r e n t t o wb!!; t kzg urzderstancl t o b e Repubkf can p r inc ip~es , t ' 50
Irrdeed, th i s p;indlt a s s a i l s a l l ". . . those Repu'cliaans
. . . who, ToT ressons of p e r s o n a l e c c e n t r f c i t y , choose t o
c a l l themselves i kpub l i cans . . . "51 without f i r s t con-
v e r t i n g t o conservatism. 12 f a c t , Nat iona l Review a s an
i n s t i t u t i o i ~ d e s b e s nothing l e a s t han i d e o f o g i c a l
realignment, eve- mult i - a s r ty govermsnt .52
V1itI-i r e spec t t o r e l i g i o u s i n s t i t u t i o n s , a l s o ,
Ruclrleg plumpi? f o r I d e o l o g i c a l p u r i t y . H e would cleanse
tho Roman Cathcl5.c Church by e x t i n g u i s h i n g I t s l i b e r a l
heterodoxy, by fit least broaching the s u b j e c t o f excommun-
i c a t i n g i t s
;i"Snerw t o o s c h a r i t y lie? In perml.tt i n g such ( liberal) t'Catl;lo14.cs'? t o continue s o t o l a b e l thensslves; or in e:cco~z11uir2 c a t i n g thc;m? The Pope i s unques t lonab ly re luc ta~; . , " ; t o ex~o;~aunIcaCUe. That 1s t h e u l t i m a t e s a n c t i o n 02 :;he Chu;..c3, r,ot to be usedloosely . On t h e o t h o r h s ~ ~ ^ i , tks sanc t ion ftsslf dissipates i f t h e c~~T~Y~~ f je te :s-~-- &u- a L Ue.a ,c- i n t o arnor~phozls impotence.
p-.10 f - :- d u , i ~ L --. I> , .* J s f f ~ e y Mart of Dsn?trr,cu th, a recant convert so Ca<;huIlcism, w r o t e r e c e n t l y t h a t he wondered why the Salt-rrinio, ( s o - za l l e d ) of t h e Axerican Catho l ic Chwc'n does no t d o the obvious th ing : namely embrace some f o m o f ~ r o t c s t a n t i s m o ~ 3
Such a c t i o n s and a t t i t u d e s a r e European, un ive r sa l -
is t ic-a~.chair: . \'men he denounces the '!empty1' method-
o l o g i e s of nodernity-democracy, academlc freedom, e t c .- auckPey here t oo c a l l ~ into ques t ion t h e inexorab le na ture
e f f e c t ,. he h w l s
a t thousands of years of c u l t u r a l evo lu t ion , The conserv-
s t f v s zlrcost rdrof tz a s much: ''. . , The age is a t f a u l t . . 1 " j q . . . an age I rn proud t o despisew; ". . . I reserit
the curse t h i s
c e i l t u ~ y a . r154
1-7 P Ices@ ~ ' h i a s e r e m d e w i t h t he admission t ha t ,
a s maledicto:-y and a s he does become, the theo r 1 s t
is by no means the most unbending conserva t ive e x t a n t . He
67
can, on occasion, b e i l e x i b l e . 5 5 But he assumes e l e s s
implacable pos tu re on ly infrequently.
C ONC LUSI ON
I n t h i s chapter , and in t h e underg i rd ing a n a l y s i s
in Chapter 3, i t has been demonstrated that t h e r h e t o r i c
of Willfam P. Sucltley d o e s n o t r e f l e c t the vahuos and more3
of Ameri caris; t h a t he does not understand the nature,
needs, and aspf~atfons of t h i s people; that h i s r h e t o r i c i s
no t i n consonance with t h e American cha rac t e r ; that he
appears mos t ly ob i iv ious o f , a t o t h e r times s c o r n f u l o f ,
the formidable g ' l i ~ r i ~ t a t i o n s , ' s f ' ~ ~ n ~ t ~ a i n t ~ , and "obstaclesYt
tba t , I n Aaerica, ''prevent tha au tho r f r s m accomplishfng
hi3 p u r p o s ~ ~ ' ; t h a t Suekley is, i n h i s r h e t o r i c , counter-
c u l t u r a l .
These conclusions have been reached, f l r s t of a l l ,
through an analysis of American c u l t u r e , the c h a r a c t e r o f
t h e people it has shaped , and t h e 8oclologPcal background
f r o n wSich I t h a s emerged and a g a i n s t which i t s t a n d s o u t ,
The investlg&tor has shown t h a t kmerhans a r e a b s t r a c t i v e
and case-or ien ted i n t h e i ~ a t t i t u d e s , b s > ~ v f o r , and rs-
s p o m o s . He l-izs shown further t h a t Suckley" r h e t o r i c
abundant ly ev l scss coun te r - cu l tu ra l a e s o c f a t i v e charac-
t e r i s t i c s ic tha Porn of Ln-~ensely emotional , impassioned,
and extremo language, the kind that is studded wit3 such
i n v e c t Pv6 8 s " e n 6 r 1 ~ , '' "animi1, '' "hating, '' " s p i t upon them, "
68
and "cas t i n t o h e l l " ; and counter -cul tura l associative
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of s r e l a t i o n a l , undetached type so alien
to, and untyplcal of , the p re sc ind ing , compartmentalized
Amerlcan. The i nvs s t i ga to r has f'urther demonstrated t h a t
Buckloy is o b s e s s o d with universa l principles, once-
del ivered do@rau, closed quast tons, exclusive e i the r -o r
approaches t o issues, lf teral-meaning r a t h e r than intent-
focused i n t e rp ro t z tions of law, deductive reasoning, and
ideologizod p o l i t i c s ,
The i n v s s t i g a t o ~ infers from these observations
t h a t Americans do not see t h e i r values, expectat ions, and
mores r e f l e c t e d i n Bucklsy's a r t i c u l a t i o n s ; t h a t t h e i r
'~conceptlon 05 the unfversa l audience," t h a t is , them-
se lves , diverges markedly from that of the engaged and
dogmatic a u t h r ; t h a t they d o not i d e n t i f y wlth h i s views
and modes of expression; t h a t auck ley does not likely make
converts, i n sLep i f fcan t numbers, t o h i s brand of conserv-
a t i s m .
C ONC LUSI ON
I n th:s s t u d y an attempt has been made t o wr i t e a
v a l i d c r i t i q u c of the zihetorkc of Wf llian b'. Buckley Jr. by
applylng t h e t h y e e - s k a ~ e methodology sf Rarlyn Kohrs
Campbell. Thc study encompassed tho Buckley r h e t o r i c i n
general-books, magazine a r t f c l e s , newspaper columns,
speeches, i c g r o a p t u debates, etc,-and i t s impact on what
has been ca l l ed In this inquiry '!the universal Arnerf can
audience," T'nSs concept has been deducee snd Fnferred from
the I d e a of t h e u n l v e r s ~ l audience daveloped by Chafm
Perelman. The s"c;?s. followed and the conclusions reached
i n the present i n q u i r y were as follows:
F i r s t , a "descriptive a n a l y s i s t t FVaS essayed. 'It was
sbown t h a t so3e of Buckleyts c h a r a c t e r i s t i c r h e t o r i c a l
~ a n e u v e r s il-lvcl.~c ari e f f o r t t o pre-empt-that 1s to say,
~ p p r o p r 3 a k c ? a ~ * his Y i ce , the conservat ive s i d e , alone-
these f o r i ~ i d c k 2 s rbc torLca1 a p p e a l s : those based on r e l i g i o n ,
p s t r t o t i s c , v ~ l u r , and logic;. Next i t was demonstrated t h a t
Buckley is an sggres s ive f o r e n s i c i n f l g h t a r . Some o f his
more of fecefve r'r,etorLcal thrusts were sean to be the a t t a c k
69
on the oppoilen.tTs i n t o l l l g e n c s ; the use of humor and
mookery; and the e x p l o i t a t i o n of t h e supposed and i r r e l e -
~ j a n t mistakes of the adversary,
Second, according t o the Campbell methodology,
thore was an e f f o r t nade t o appra i se the " re la t ionr r of
Buckleyfs r h e t o r i c "to i ts mi l ieu ," an attempt t o l ay bare
?'the e x t r i z s i c a l e ~ e n t s - t h e e x t e r n a l l i m i t a t i o n s , con-
s t r a i n t s , or inf luofices on the rhe to r i c i an9s choices, " and
the extent t o which the ?hetor has overcome these wobstaclestt
of vhistor5.cal-oulte71iq~1 context ." I n consonance w i t h the
sug~estions sf both Campbell and Perelman, an a t t e n p t was
made t o discovar "as much fnformat ion as poss lb le about
t h e persons usua l ly exposed t o the dSsoourse," An examin-
a t f o n was then made of r ep resen ta t fve passages from
Buckieyls polemics as t o t h e i r l f k e l y impact on these "per-
sons, 7t these persons comprising the un ive r sa l Amerf can
audience.
Fortuktously, a s t h e second s tago of t h e study was
undertaken, thc t h i r d s t a g s was attempted a l s o . For a s
Caizpbell scggesto2, the t h i r d s t a g e of r h e t o r i c a l analysf s,
t h e v in t e rp ro .ba t i ve analysLs, " involves the s p p l i c a t i o n of
E s t a n d a r d of j ~ a p a n t t o the r l ~ e t o r l c i n question. This
c r i t e r i o n , Campbel l o f f w e d , can be se lec ted from those
implied i n the work of the ~ ~ u b j e e t u n d e ~ s tudy himself.
Koted were s e v e r a l excerpts from Buckleyfs books and
a r t i c l e s thak ind ica te that t h i s c o n t r o v e r s i a l i s t be l ieves
7 1
t h e Amerlcan people a r e b a s i c a l l y , thou gh " feck less ly ,
r t consar~va t ive ,Y ' snd t h a t he and o t h e r r i g h t i s t s understand
them b e t t e r and r e f l e c t t h e i r v a l u e s b e t t e r than t he
"Soc ia l abstractfonf~ts,~ that is to say, the l i b e r a l s .
What Was i n f a c t shown about t h e u n i v e r s a l American
audience was the fo l lcwing: that Americans i n g e n e r a l
appear t o be exceedingly " a b s t r a c t i v e , " in c o n t r a s t t o
c i t i z e n s i n mope a r c h a l c s o c i e t i e s , who a r e rnore,"associa-
t f v o ," That is, A;r,cricans tend t o be func t ion-or ien ted ;
r e l a t i v e l y unenok5onz 1; open tc: r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h s trangers
and even those u~.,,"r9.endly t o them, e s p e c i a l l y when the de-
riiands o f t h e i r job o r f u n c t i o n c a l l f o r such a b s t r a c t i o n
o r compartnentalfzation; consummately i n c l i n e d t o de t ach
from the business a t band cons fde ra t ions which a r e i r r e l e -
van t ; and ded ica t ed t o the even-handed r u l e of law.
Americans were shown also t o be "case-or ien ted ," i n
c o n t r a s t t o t hose i n more a r c h a i c o r " u n i v e r s a l i s t i c " s o c i s -
t i e s , That is, f o r Cmoricans, Pac t s and "casesu coroe before
un ive r s ~ l s o r generc lizat ions; t h e l e s sons of p re sen t ex-
pe l - lance s u p o r a o An trnd 1 t i o n a l ivays of d o i n g s thin@ ;
s-b-cn3 be l r e f s Z L ~ r s l v a r n t o t o l e r a t i o n ; words y i e l d t o
r e a l i t L c s ; the l7ondoctr inai re approach p r e v a i l s i n p o l i t i c s ,
mslcing the tv~~-:?ar tg system almost t h e emblem of what it
means to be >-yA;;lo-!Lmcrican.
I n c o n t ~ a s t , MG r h e t ~ r i c of Willlam auckleg was
to be s t e d d a d with arachaLc and c o u n t e r - c u l t u r a l
72
a s s o c i a t i v e and u n i v e r s a l i s t i c elements. Buckley' s rhe-
t o r i c was s a s l t o exhtbit pronounced a s s o c i a t i v e - c m o t i o n d
t r a i t s of an fntensfty and s t r i d e n c y Americans would no t
l i k e l y i d e n t i f y with and be ~ o v e d by. T h i s body of rhe-
t o r i c d i s p l a y s a l s o , i t was shown, elements of a s s o c i a t i v e
"engagement," h c l i n a t i o n on t h e p a r t of the a u t h o r not
t o d e t a c h a b s t r a c t from c o n s i d e r a t i o n d a t a Americans i n
g e n e r a l would r ega rd as i r r e l e v a n t . It was shown, t oo ,
t h a t the sab j e c t is f r equen t ly u n f v e r s s l i s t i c i n h i s thinlc-
ing and polemiciz lng; European, e s p e c i a l l y w i t h r e s p e c t t o
h i s c a l l f o r i d s o l o g i c a l p u r i t y in t h e Republican p a r t y .
By inference i t was concluded t h a t Americans do n o t
s e e t h e i r va lues , expec t a t i ons , and mores r e f l e c t e d i n
Buck leyqs a r t i c u l a t f o n s ; t h a t t h e i r "concept ion of t h e u n i -
v e r s a l audience, '' t h a t i s , t h e i r concep t ion of themselves,
a s evidenced by the way t h e y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y behave and
r e a c t , d ivergos ~ m r k e d l y from t h a t of t h e engaged and dog-
mat ic authoF; that t h e y do no t i d e n t i f y w i t h his views azd
modes of expresslm; tha t Suckley does n o t l i k e l y make
conv6r t s9 i.1~ c i ~ n i f i c a n t numbers, t o hPs brand of conserv-
ctisn, LE E.rcerlcz, t h o Buckley rhe tor ic ! can have, it w o u l c !
appear , only i l x i t e d appea l ,
P i a S r L I ~ - Ynis s tudy has not been an e m p i r i c a l one.
Opinions havz noz been samp:led from l i s t e n e r s and reaclcrs
be fo re and wftc? expasure t o Buckley9 s appea ls . An avenue
f o r f u r t h e r i n q u i r y could be t h e assembling and a s s e s s i n g
73
of all available, psrt lnent d a t a on the impact of Buckley's
books, t e l ev i s i on programs, newspaper c o l u m s , etc., not
as t o what t h ~ C impact i n d i c a t e s about Buckley as p o l i t i c a l
e n t e r t a i n e r , bu t what i t sugges t s , i f anything, about his
powor t o chan::e rninds and t . 2 reinforce like-minded
~ ~ S O ~ O W ~ S *
NOTES
l~a r ly r i S o b s Campbell, Critiques of Conteaporary Rhetoric (BeLinont, C&Sif osn ia : Gdsworth mlishing --- Company, Inc,, P972f, p a 14.
% b i d , , p . 13, 615id. , p e 19, 71 b i d . loch. : 'orrL~an and L. Olbreohts-Tytaoa, The N e w - --
Rhetor ic , b. - - T r e n k L s s --.-- - o n k ~ m m e n t a t i o n (Notre Dame, Indiana: ~ n i v e r si ty of i:o %re 2arc.e-969).
16~he: --- N s w Yokvk T i m e s , August- 20, 1971, p . 35, cOle 5 0
17~kn:nas 3'. ?~Tader, " ~ o r i o l a n u s and God : A Burkeian View of irVf llfax :!uckleyc' (unpublished IDcctor's d i s s e r t a t i o n , Northwestern :j;'Licersl.ty, f966),
18 T 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 -,, .% , m I - 3rsoks Jr., "A S tudy of W i l l 1 am F. Buckley Jr.8~ 2 h o c ~ y and Pract Leo of Persuasion" (cnpub- 99sked Yaeter r s t h e s f s , U n i v e r s i t y of F lo r ida , 1967).
. r 21~~3;?1~5 - - ! Z,G G;T, Rliatorfzal .k~algsia of Three Speeckes by ?!r; t s n 'r;'ranii: Buckley Zr." (unpub l i shed Tbtaster9s t h e s i s , LouSs;:nc Skata UnSvers l tg , 1967),
2%. Clayt~i i l Dubofs , "The F f r s t Family of Conserv- atisrr," T5c XeY.: York T ~ K E S s a z i n e , A u g s t 9, 1970,
pp. 27-38; C h n ~ i c ? s Lam Marlanam, The Guckle rs A Family ~xaminod _I_ ( N O ~ J ' f o rk : 'dVTlllarn I ? O P P O K ~ & $ , - T ~ 'Im, ppw 10-13, 31-42.
23flTha Sniper , " Time, November 3, 1967, p. 72. - I t 24!~or1,,amy op. c i t . , p..46; "Sniper, pp. 71-72.
0 r: ~Jl';arlr~narii?, op * cit * , pp 53-97; ' J i l l iarn 3'. Bucltley
Cod and Tkn a t Yale (Chicago: nenry Reqncry Co., 1951). Jr.9 --- - -- ~ ~ V P B , z l ~ T ~ t e ~ and Asides," Natioral Review, Llay 22, -
1962, p. 356; ; : : F l l i ~ m F. 3uclrley Jr., c r - t i g i n ~ Speed (New ~ o r k : G. P . Putnamss Sons, 197P), pp. -134.
27kA~3ac1at2d Press dispatcht Lancas ter kennsylvaniaj N e w E r a J u l y 26, 1971, p, 17, c o l . 4, - --I
Jewe: ---- - --. Govei2nor - - - I , i .~:~?ti? -- - (1;e'id York: G , P. Putnan 's ~ b a s , 1 9 7 0 r T n v n i rlli
-. - - .- - n;.: ,C;, 1111 Go (New York: G o P. Putnamls Sons, 1972); - --
w 'lrork: S o P. Putnamt s S O ~ . 1973) : - -- - - - .- .~ - Foul, ~ e f i 3 p r f l ~ - ( ~ ~ ~ - -,-...- P .-
xxecutf on >;vo znd Other Conte r f lp s~a~ - G. p . pid E Z Z ~ Z - Z Z ~ ~ Z P ~ ~ ~ no v e 1:
~ a l l n d i (flew' York: Savina the Queen (Pew
York: Doubledag end-CO., 1nc.. 1976): and n works t he csnssrva t i v o has edited o r - con t r ibu ted t o .
291'1n This I s s u e y w N a t i o n a l Reolevr, September 22, 1970, p * 975.
l trc As 8 x7ule we t r u s t of p r o b i t y nore , . a I# " ~ p r i s t o t l ~ , _U T"na _-- Rhetoric - of ~ r i s t o t l e , t r a n s . Lane Cooper (Xaw Ycrk: A2pleton-Century-frof ts, Inc . , 1932),
;Il;l;rla;ld, I r v f n g L. James, and Earold He KeYlay, -- Cui~:?ri.r:L,:z .-I .---..-.I--"L.-..- t i o n -- and - Persuasion (New Haven: Yale mive7s Ttg 22e 2s 1 1 9 3 3 ) , p p , n - 4 ~ ; Lester Thonssen and Cra ig bai-sd, S-seecrh .--- CrSticie'm (New Yorlc: The Ronald Press C oixpany , 3.9487 .
3 ~ u i n t i l i ~ , n , - O n -- the Ea r ly _I_.p Educstion - of - the -- Citizen- Orsator t r a ~ ~ s , the Tleversnd John Sel'ay 'J'lctson, e d . James J. KGG' (Indianapolis: The Bohbs-Herr ill Company, Inc . , 1965), p. Tnis passage is from Book I. See a l s o Book X I . 1 .
%he Const i tu t ion of the United S t a t e s o f America, - ---7 -- - Amendm6nts , 1.r L lc 'keI .
5 ~ o f i s t ~ t u t f o n ~ A~endrnents, Article XIV.
6!$lf lliax F , Suckley Jr., "The A s s a u l t ~hnrcbers , " TYe ;"evrele;-gs Eye ( N a w York: G. P. Scns, 1963),$,-2'i>-
on Whit t a k e r Pu tnamf s
7 " U i l . l i i l m F. Buc!:ley Jr., lrBeii;nrks on e P i f th A r m i v e r s a ~ y , " - T ; : ; ~ ? E l s s ,. . - - . . . - , 1,ef-L and R l s g h t (New York: G. Y. Putnamvs Sons, 2 .963r p.-36"7
8Y'i91:!lam F a Buckley Jr., " W i l l They Take ~ v e ? ' ' Nnt! .on~- l Reait';'?! J u l y 30, 1363, p , 59, (Excep t f o r tha ---- - -.--..- 9
f i r s t p ~ f € 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CTl each cha:pter, N a t i o n a l Review w i l l here- a f t e r be r e f s ~ r e d to as NR.) -
9."- l i t i l l l a m 3'. Euckley Jr., "Nihi l Ob~tat,~' NK -9
January 28, 1961, p. 56.
10~r i l l i c rn F. Buckley Jr., hockle ley at Y a l e , " hQ - J
May 10, 1974, pe 555.
l13uzk ley , "Instructing Norman ly la i l e r on the True Meaning of t h e American Rfght VJing," Rumbles, p , 83.
1%3uck ley, "Douglas KecArthur-Fiss ing b u t 'Jell P-ccounted F'o?, " Ssns.kory s EE, pp, 332-33. See a l s o --- William I", Bxc3:ley Jr,, %'i?ter P a t r i o t i ~ n z ' ? ~ ' NR, August 9, - 1966, p,. 764.
I~~JV~EIL~K F a Buckley Jr., Quotations from Chairman Y i l l , ed , D a w X 5 ' ~ ~ i i l s ~ ( N e w ~ o c h e l " f f ~ r ~ r ~ t o n -II
Eouse, 1970) , p, 60 ,
1 6 * t ~ i i l i n ; ~ 3'. R u c k l t y JP., 3 from --- L i b e r a l i s m ( N e w York: HSillman d o ~ ! : ~ , 1961), pp, 26-283hfs is the p a p e r - beck edition of t h e book,
For m r e of X r , B u c k l e y ~ s use of the syllogism 313s a l s o , e,g., ! : ' J f l l i am F. Buckley Jr., tlI\ricGovern Ens tho
Aura of Victo:*g," Tho [1%iladelphiaj E v e n . 5 ~ Bulletin, June 5, 1972, p . 9; ~ i - l l i c r p . Bucklay JP . ,Th-ky Against oldw water," 142 Ju>y 16, 1963; F i r i n g Line, PBS, Januarg 8, 1974, with ~nAt Xf chardson.
1713uclr 1-ey, I,,iberali$m, pp. 59-60; l f? i l l fam F. nuckley Jr., "Tke Naed f o r Butolrr ted pushbut tons ," NR, February 26, LBG3, p. 147; Bllliam F. Buckley JP., Tenk ina and the P u b l l c C o n ~ z r n , ' ~ NR, November 3, 1964, p, 947; Vlf Illam 2'. ~ U C ? . E ~ B Y JF ''me F i n a n c i a l Predicament of Higher EdueatSon-IT, The Pitch t o the Cor~oration,~ NR, January 26, 1957, p . 89.
203uc:::lsy, "A Fortnight with M~rray R e r n p t ~ n , ' ~ Rumbles, p , l7l,
Z 1 ~ u c k i e y , %,Lbe;.slism, p . 28. =I bid . 23\;~111fam 3'. Buckley Jr,, "An ~ l t e r n a t i v e , " ,J NR
March 23, 1971, 2, 331,
24:;:~~l :En Y , Buckley Jr., "Impeach Rixon, " Inveighinc; ?/e .,Vill So (mew Ywrk: G. P. Putnamt s Sons, 19721, - - -- - p e 265.
2 5 1 ~ 1 1llax P , BucIcSey Jr . , "Needed : .bother Investigation," I&, Septsnber 6, 1966, p. 875,
2 D ~ ~ l l i r m 9. Buckley Jr., "Brando a t UTounded Knee," NR, - April 27, 1973, p e 487.
2 9 f r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ EnC Asidus," E, A p r i l 23, 1960, P e 2570
303~illt.i-! F, Buckley Jr., ''The Perplexing Candidacy of P ~ o f esssr i ' . . i~i~es," X?# August 25, 1962, p. 131; W i l l - l a m I?, Sucklag J?,, riA:,9 tha Left Goes, So G ~ e s ~ a r n a r d , " X R , November 21, 1359, p. 487,
s 2 , i i F Buckley Jr., "The Tranquil World of Dwight D. ~ i s e n h o i ~ ~ a r , ~ ' NR, January 18, 1958, pp, 57-58,
3 3 ~ d f t o ~ l a 1 , "5FK Cloying?" -9 NR April 8, 1961,
208. ~ f . Y J i l l i s m Pa Buckloo Jr., C p i s i n q - Speed (New York; G. P. Putfir-my:: Sons, 1971), p. 66.
3 4 3 ! J i l l i o n P. Ruckley Jr., "The V o i c e of S i r Chinrles," Y 3 , lvoy 22, 1962, p. 358; Bucltley, " ~ n n i v e r s ~ r y , " p. 87- ~l;iTil~s~. 5'. Buckley Jr,, "~erbert Yatt'aews Goes t o Yale,R -' NR December 31, 1960, p . 404.
353uok1eY, "The P o l i t l c s of Truman Capotets ~s11," Jewelsrqs EJC~, p. 294.
37l$lilliar;l F. Buckley Jr,, "'.'u'hat To 7% About Sloppy ~ s s s ? ' ~ XR, 35;nuary 17, 1959, p . 463,
38~uc:cley, " ~ 5 e Assault on Yibittaker Chambers," Zevreler's EJpg g y 215.
39i3r;c".lsy, "Spelunking with Norman Mailer, Xbid , , pa 251.
43~ditcrisl, NR, July 17, 1962, p. 12.
449uckley, "An Evening with Jack Paar," Rumbles, p, 169,
4%Yilliarn P, ailckley Jr., The Unmalrin of a Ma o r (New York: The Viliing Pi-oss, I n c . , ? f 9 ' 6 ~ ~ f 6 4 . -S&SO, e ,g., E ~ c k l z y , "?sar," pp. 164-65.
~ C L . I ' c r s L ~ a n and L1 Clbrechts-Tyteca, The 1%~ Rhekorlc, I----.---I- - X '2r?i?:.iLlsc on - Ar~uaantation ( N o t r e Dane, Indiar~a: Ezivarsity 02 ; , I ~ ~ ~ - . - ,I s !-lane T r e s s , lG97, pp. 20-21.
+>,- ., ' ? , . . ..it, pret,ail;iTing mode of thought is t h o nirtrfx of nL1 In:.;tii;uticns--economfc as well as po1itic;al a:.,a A L Yocia i i-'.. . .' 1) Karl Pr lb r am, Conf P i c t inq Pa t tams ,,, t~tutions, of T h w ir'nt (Vs'ashiagton: Publ ic Affairs ~'i'm"9mT -7 - - - C L U
if thm ght pa%% ern3 precoed and de termins behavior p a t t e r n s ,
how importact I t m ~ s t b e f o r the would-be persuader t o reflect those of h i s culture,
31loet of the m a t e r i a l on the c u l t w a l development of rnank'ind hs:: been derived from the work of Professor Edaund S, Cierm of t h a 1.7.i?iversity of T e l ~ w a r e , p a r t i l c u l a , ~ i y f ron h i s cowrsc: a t ha unaver s i ty o n I n t e ~ c u l t u r a l c o m ~ n i - c a t ions, Sec also 5drc:drbd $. (Ghm, "Cohent s Conceptual S t y l e s : a Corn-,ic.nt, '"?:r.ericzx Antb .~-op lo?*, vo 1, 72, No. 6 ( B c e n S o r , 5970) ; Glem, "A Cognitive Approach t o the Analysis of Cul';l;ros znd of Culture Change," General S atoms ' J o l , 11 ( 1 9 8 6 ) , pp. 115-32; Glenn, "The TK Facss i Y - - - y of ?Sar;ionalisr~," Coxparativa - P o l i t i c a l Stttdies - (1970).
Q ~ t e v a n Lukes, E m i l e 9 Durkheirn ??Is L i f e and Work ( N e w York: Ea:.>er and ROVJ, Publishers, 3572),.78';11
5 ~ o q e ? F o r t e s , X i i i ~ h L ? .the S o c i a l - Orde r (Chicago: Aldi:"le Tubl ishing C O E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S ~ , pp. 101-121,
E ? ~ ~ : c e s , l o c , c it. ; Exi Le 'DurlAeirn, - The Elementary - -l r arms of tbr: 1i;clirl cus L i f e ( R e w York: The Xacrnman - --.- -...,--A p.-- -
ompany, 79L.s 1 , p 19'7.
7 5 a c 3 a t 5 1x1 .iv ,24-25; Gurkheim, op. cLt , , pp . 351-41-4.
8~ ' , 4~x ':!a bcr, On Char isru.a and Ins t l tu t f on Hu i ld inq, -- eB, 3. N. 3isens'r;sd-t-T~hf cago: The U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago Press, 1 ~ 6 6 8 ) ~ p * 81.
g ~ o r d i n a n d T o m l e a , Cornunity n d o c e d . and t r a n s , Chaplos P. r,oomis ( E a s t ~ a n x g , 1" i ~ a n State - - Univers i ty Pi-cts , 1557).
ic1:8?tx "tf,isi~ep, The Theory of S o c i a l and Econornlc -- - Orqanisa t?on -- t r z r ~ s , T, Parsons n x f o r d , England : Oxford ~ n T v e T s i ~ ~ - a o ; s , 19.17) .
i n ~ ~ 3 1 - ?-2nry Vaine, Ancient Law (new i d .; London: T. - - . k r r a y , 1553) .
1%o~Lt2-s Cohan, "Ccnceptuai Styles, Culture Conflict, ~~6 : \ ;onvsrSa1 Tests of Intelltgence, '' American An.;5?opoio~Ps'=:, 71 (L969), pp. 828-56. - w--
l . l ~ u c k c n Lsvg-3ruh1, P r i m i t i v e ?!entali.., t r a n s . -- - L i l i a n C;z:s (Few York : T'hs Macmil lan Company, 1323) .
1 5 ~ , ?ayscns end E. A . Shi l s ( e d u . ) , To?~arc! - 2 c o n o r a l Thcs~v o f A c ~ i o n (CambrLd~e: Earvard University Yrbc 3 8 , 1r5-~)<u- --
~ G E , i:.'zrner, Com7aratl.ve Psgcholoqx of' Nental Xeve l o ~ n e n t (17 ?TI I Y O T ~ ~ I - T ~ G ' ~ ~ ~ ~ and Sons, 1 9 4 r
1753.1r::~;c3 j - 1 ~ ~ o p e c i f ; , , pp . 87-140, and especially pp. 141-166; ~ c c t a l s o E m c l e D~rkhein? and Marcel Idnuss, P r i i x l t:ve Clns'2_i.-ficztg, ed. and t r a n s . Rodney Keedham (Chicago: Tho U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press, 1963), e s p e c i a l l y pp. 81-88.
l g ~ e n r S S ~ m i e r Maine, -- Ancient - T,avl (Xew York: Henry Hol t an2 Cox,pcng, 3828 ) , pp* 22 ffe
20~r ibr .nr i : , ConPlictinrl P a t t e r n s . pp. 7-8, 16.
2 1 ~ d 1 s : ~ r d C . S t e x a r t , ---- American Cultural Pa t t e rns : A ---- c r o s s - C u l t w n l I-- U-- Por~spoc t lve be-w \PiSi;sburgh: ~ o ~ i o n ~ n c i l Tor Inzerfist losti l L d u c a t i o n , P971), p, 56.
2 2 ~ r i b 2 a m , op. c i t . , pp. 3, 12. Pribram uses the l o b e h "nominalism" instead of case -o r i en ta t ion .
2 3 ~ t o w s r t , o p e c i t . , pp. 38, 50-51, 54-55. F o r en excellent dosc~iptf on of t h i s f a c e t of the American cha rac te r , sce 'iJ',lliarn I-T. 'ifi-yte Zr,, "The Web of 3'risndship9* The Or ~anl.zat:og (New York: Doubleday and Go,, Inc., ~ ~ ? + S % T - S 6 .
2 4 ~ t e ~ f a r t , op. c i t . , pp. 40-42.
2 5 ~ ~ i b ~ o n i , op. c i t . , pp. 18-20. 261bid,, p, 18.
27The,- . L & L ,.+.q-, L SS-~bae, "SakYierov Calls Paraley C r i k i c a l , " -- Ti:i - l:eu - Y o r ! ~ T i m e s , J u l y 30, 1975, p, 9, c ~ l . 3.
2 8 ~ & r , ' ~ z l E l i o t lCorison and Esnry S t e e l e C o m a g e r , TYLe G r s v i t h o:l the /Lrrierfcan Re'nubllc 11 (New York: Oxford ----I-" -I-- n -r.--- - - P Unf ve r s i ty L J L - S ~ ~ z,, i S 5 ~ 7 619,
30';!,1t3~ Phe ips E a l P and William Stearns Davis. T h e Courso o f Ei2173ne s i n c e S'iraterloo (f\!evr York: ~ ~ p l e to;- - -- - --. ,.-
Century-Crofts, I r ~ c . ,-m57), pp. 9-9-103.
31~b i d . , pp. 617-18, 622-20.
N e w cP. Hi 11
z%lVillia:ii P. Euckley Jr . , Tho I7nrn~'xin of a York: Tka Vi:cln,q P re s s , I n c . , f i 9 6 6 m 1 . 7 1 - 7 2 - \ l~ i l l fam F'. I 3 ~ c k i - e ~ Jr.; U from 1, iberal ism ( N e w .man Rooks, 1961), p. 2 1 ./;E-
CHAPTER 4
l '~l l l ia:?1 F. Rtlckley Jr., " A s the Left G,oes, So Goes Harvard," n ' s t i o n a l Rev iew, Novomber 21, 1959, p. 487.
2:2lillim 3'. Buckley Jr., Quo ta t ions from C b a i r m ~ n B i l l e d . D~ivid Franke (3ew ~ o c h e E N e w York: ArlS.n,rton - 3 House, 1970) , p , 285.
S ~ d " i t o ? ~ a l , vt'P,by the South Xust P ~ e v a f P , " X?, ~ u g u s t 24, 9957, pp. IdG-49. See a l s o W911iam F. Buckley Jr., "The 1ssu.a at Selma," .- NR 9 .March 9, 1965, p. 183; Buckley, --,.- Q.uotc; '~i .or,~, ..r .u.-:-7,. p , 295'; Wililam F. Buckley Jr., U Prom L l b o r a l i m (Sew York: Hillman Books, 1961), p. 1s. --
4!?~i112zm F. Buckley Jr., "Why Pr inceton?" -9 NR Vay 25, 1957, 2. 500.
5 ~ a 1 . 1 P r i b ~ r m , Conf l i c t i n P a t t e r n s of Thought (Vashington: Publ ic A f f s - d 1 r i . ? 7 .
-
6 ~ e e Chapter 3 f o r t h e a n a l y s l s on which these a s s e r t i o n s a re based, and f o r a d e s c r i p t f o n of the s o c i a l i n c l i n a t i o n s and cu l tu . ra1 h e r i t a g e of the American people.
7~a~,a2c11;7 the re occur red some r e a c t i o n t o this parchsd i x t e l l c z t z a l lsm within the P r o t e s t a n t Church i t s e l f , Fo r o;;r,z32.s i ~ = Pietism. See WLPliston Walker, A R i s tomr of ";'rL:: Ch~icttnn Church (ITew York: Char les - -. 1- -- .-- .--- -- -7-
~ c r i b n c ~ ~ s Ls!:.;, i95Y ) , pp. 444-54.
0.. \b1? " ., -1 :: r-,..? F * Buckley 3r e " I n s t r u c t Sng Wormaii 7.':BiLeT ,2n "--,..- "- +.. .sli;oning of the Amsrlcsn R i p a t Wing," -- -. . " > 32i:2.y:les .;.<>::;: :s:ij i?1:1-ht ( K B W York: G o P. Pu$narnOs Sons,
, , . - - l i - . --.-,.--- & ' J lb0Jj9 PP .I.
10;b i 2 ., 32 , 105-106; sea a l s o lv i l l i am F. Buckleg T'r.:; Co-z- itt toe end Its C r i t i c s ( ~ e r v York: G. P. Jr* ( a d = ) 9 --..,.- -y-- - --
h t n a m t s S O ~ , .lC,52), p a 28.
1&Villia;;l F w Buckley Jr., lVInvi t i r ,g Comunists t o Speak a t C o l i e g s s , " - a Xi? October 22, 1963, p. 345.
14Willia~ F. Buckley Jr., "An Affect ionate Farewell t o Alfred Koh lbc~g , ' ' NR, A p r i l 23, 1960, pp. 258-59.
15~i:jg.lliarri F. Buckley Jr*, Lii fe , October 17, 1969, p , 12.
16sea above, pp. 23-24.
l r l ~ r n 6 s t vran dan Ha.as, " ' Crimes Agains t Humanity, " K R , Auzils t 2 7 , i9E3, - p . 155. See a l s o BditorPal, "Let's A l l I?ate Car r ; ; a~~y , C a ~ ; ~ s a d s , ~ ~ ZR, Yarch 25, 1961, p. 172; Editoria'a, "T:-,s~gYis on Eicmann," 9 ITR April 22, 1961, pp. 238-59; 1<6Ctorial , " I s r a e l Against t he Jews," -3 NR Bray 2 1960, p. 4 1 5 ; E d i t o r i a l , "The Law a n d t h e Eichmann ~ a s e , ~ E, Juna 18, 1960, p. 382.
18i3uck~ey ( e d . ) , Co~mfttee, pp. 28 ff.
l%hickley, "Kohlberg," p. 259.
2 G l i ~ 1 Dcckleg Jr., Cruising Speed (New Yorlc: Gw P. h tna rn ' s Sons, 1971), p , 234.
2 1 ~ i l l i c m F. Eiuclcley Jr . , inveighin8 :!ire TtJill. Go --- ( N e w York : G. P. i'utnnm's Sons, f9m, p . 88.
2 2 ~ d l t o r i a l , "Yr. Eisenhower F a l l s t o the Summit ," N R , August 15, 1959, pe 263. -
23~boortise%ont, NR, August 29, 1959, p p . 293, 312. qlYie dpean of g roa t T i t l e s plas tered with these s i ~ p l e s t i c k e r s , the badgo cf honor." E d i t o r i a l , ''Row t o - ? r o t e s t ? " - 9 WR August 29, 1959, p . 294.
24t '~h; Week," NR, August 2, 1958, p. 99. "Natl.ona1 --- R e v 5 . e ~ will p a y $5.00 each f o r the ten bes t answers . ---
Z5f '~oto: ! 2nd AsZdes," NR, A u g u s t 30, 1958, p. 152. See a l s o Buclrle:~, "012 the V i s i t of Xhrushchev t o t he U n i t e d - - S t a t e s in '19Ss9," - R;;~!bles ----%-9 pp, 42-48. "lfz. Gallop confirmed the popu1ark'i;y of che l'rssio'entf s decision-which, i t turns o u t , exceeds even the populari ty of tha President himself ." ( P . 43.) My, Buckley cannot understand i t .
2 6 ~ ~ ; i.tor3.r 1, "It '91 B e Cliburn, sop, " NR, l k y 10, 1958, p . 440.
2 7 2 : d i t o r ' i n l , "Reop S e a t e d Please ," E, bky 10, 1658, p. 4-46.
2 % 6 l t o r f a l , "Gromyko a t the B ie r , " E, June 6, 1959, PO 102.
2 9 ~ u c i r l _ e ~ , "A Fo r tn igh t wi th I lurray Kempton, "
Rnmblos, p o 1g0. - 3 0 ~ : ~ 13 iam F . Buckley Jr . , "Notes f r o m London, lt
NR, November 23, 1957, p. 467. - 31~ucklay , Cruislng Speed, p . 166.
323i;bcr. all cccounts , William F. Buckley Jr., the p r i v a t e mail, i s a chaxning and c o r d i a l human being who can perforin favors f o ? l i b e r a l s and c o n s e r v a t i v e s a l i ke . He even o f f a r o d t a tnYz the e d i t o r of America t o lunch a t the tSme of one 0:' tkr?t%? i n t o r ~ q i t t e n t 3-8. (Ruckley, " C n t h ~ l l c Tli'nc??sls, C:^i tho l j -c Conservzt Sves, etc., " Runbles, p. 151.) Zx~,; : i ;-~c,d hore, though, is not Mr. Buckleyls s o c i a l l i f e , 'su"cra+~!~er his rhetoric.
3 3 ~ 1 i l l i o m P, 2uck l sy Jr., ' ' Ile~e end There i n t h e Col lege ' u ' / ~ r l d , ~ ' 2,' Y ' i Jsnuary 3, 1959, p. 432; YlP11iam F o
Buckley Jr., '".-Lk"ny Princeton?' ' 9 WR May 25, 195'7, p. 500; l;/f lliam F, Euclrley Jr.. ''What 1Jakes Buckley Run? ( A S e l f - I n t e r v i e w ) , I f - The - -----.-- ?ove&or L i s t e t h (Mew YO&: G o 2 . Putnamts Sons, 1970), ?p. 113-27, e s p e c i a r l y pp. 120-21.
3 5 ~ n e inozc exanp le of Kr. Buckley t s assoc ia t9ve- nsss , v l s -a -w ls t h c acadeny: from the Harvard Crimson the -.- t h e o r i s t ; q u o t a ~ disapprovingly t h e s e characterFtics of ". . . conter2porary ILboraP educa t ion . . . . 'Even t h e r e l i 3 i o u s p e ~ s o n , moreover t he b e l i e v e r In s t i l v a t i o n through E p a r t i c u l a r church, must d ivo rce h9s r o l e o f bc1'1.ever TOM: t k s r o l e of teacher. I f he would teach he c a r n o t by d%;i~es'; mathods fish for s o u l s . I I' 'VJilliam F.
? I .I * 3uckleg Jre, .!LU ljaI?*~a~C?, Sir, We DO NO% Fish f o r S O U ~ S - - I , x - 9 a 0 1966, pp; 75-77.
In o t S a ~ ao?ds, N r . Buckley I s suggest ing t h a t one s 3 o u l d c c t e b ~ t r s c t e x p l i c i t s e c t a r i a n witness from one 's on-the-job ?o le as secular teacher. He should n o t flmodulate" his " d ~ g m a s . I!
363ucklsy, Libern l l . s m , pp. 211-212.
375uclcley, "XoT?PSerg, " p . 259.
3 9 ~ u c ~ c l e y , Reply to Robert Rutchins '' Runblez, pp. 137-39. See also 'dlllism P. Buckley Jr,, 'sere L i e s the Empty Xind, " s, April 20, 1957, p. 382.
40I3ucl~leY, Cr1.13.sLy,. S p e e d , p . 248; Willlem F. Buckley Jr., "The TranquS. </orld of Dvight Eisenhower, " NR, January 18, 19SE, p o 59; VVilliam F. Buckley Jr., "The -- Decline of ?rTr. S e ~ a e d y ? ' ' E, Aug~s't; 13, 1963, p , 95; BuckJoy, Quot~tions, p, 68.
4l;nl.ill.'iax F * Euckley Jr . , "On Tormenting F ' u ~ f gbt, " WR, J u l y I, 1969, p. 663, -
421 ' l i l l i aw F. 3uckley Jr . , "The Economic Issue, " NR, December 1, li973, p, 1515.
4 3 " ~ c r ~ - u e - ~ n - ~ h e e k CundSds te, ' Life, September 17, 1965, 54.
'%'1111ius F , Bucklep Jr , , "Wornenls Lib Watching, " NF Sopternbe? 8, 1370, p. 965. - 9
4 5 i ) / i l l l r m 8. auckleg Jr., "Judge Carswell ' S Mediocrity," IS?, A p r i l . 21, 1970, P- 429.
46~illiam Y. 3ucklag Jr., "The Need for Automated Pushbuttons," -9 KH February 26, 1963, p, 147,
4 D ~ i i l l i a m F. Buckley Jr., (New York: T'na Vj . k ln3 Zress, Inc., See also Bucklay, Quotations, pp, 165, 167.
"I
49,?uc!c1i;g, n q T h ~ Agony o f Llr, N ixon, '' Governor, p . 28. See &:so 3uckley, suotationg, p. 98.
50.... ; ;r~hl ' ,ax F. B ~ c k l s g Jr ,, IBNixon and the Xew Ycrk 23lecticn," - 9 ?IF. Jully 28, 1970, p , 805.
513ucl:'iey, - t ? .~~r , tat ions , p , 242.
c 9 3-Cay.t~on, "Two Broken Iiearts That Should T ~ a d e
g52i:8n t 9 , t t -7 ' ' 7 3 Ilugxs'c 31, 9957, 3 . 178; Edftorial, "'Tfiree, F ~ ~ ~ , ,an -y Pai-$las ," ~3
- 9 A p r i l 6 , 1971, p. 357.
53-.?23if.,;:; F,, auckleg. Jr,, " ~ h s Agony of Paul VI, " N!?, A p r i l 22, 1967, -
5 4 ~ u z 3 r l o ~ , - €!,l~otat ions *-, pp. 154, 103, 222.
550ncc in a ?vhile Iffre Buckley can ", . . d i s - t inguish be twcen p i rad ig iza t ic p o l f t i c a l w r i t i n g , and pru- d e : ~ t l a l apprcn ches t o coilcretts s i t u a t f o n s , " Editorihl, "Is Goldwater Woving L e f t ," NR, October 22, 1963, p. 338. Fer8e a r o n f e w examples :
. . , ?:?assiire efforts t o h e l p the Negro must be i rade . . i n order r e a l i s t i c a l l . ; t o h e l p t o ach leve d e s i r a b l e r e su l . t s . , , and prevent the ' h o t summ(3r.I" ; 'lilliarn F, Buckley 3ro, "TSa Great Opportuni ty of 1965, " N R , August 8 , 1967, p r 842. -
"The d f l n n i n ~ consciousness of tho p o l l t i c a l wny up the l a d d e r 5.s rzc ing through t h e g h e t t o s , S t r a t e ~ P c a l l y i t nay be dnngc:ous, s ince tho t e m p t a t i o n is u n i v e r s a l s u b s k i t u t e p o l i t i c a l for economlc rneana of self- ag,zrandlzerns-ni; : but t a c t i c a l rewards are cons ide rab l e ." ':u'~lliam F. B ~ o k S e g Jr,, "Up from Watts," - >!I?, June 17, 1969, p9. 610-21.
The conservat4ae has ca l led f o r a relaxation of the anti - ~ u r f juana la:n;s, f ~ r 169s st~ingent Caths l i c a t t i t u d e s toward contraceptl .on, and f o r " . . , the l e e a l i z ~ t i o n of p r i v a t e hoc!cse>:,t;ril. a c t s c o m i t t e d between consen t ing a d u l t s and o f p r o s t f t ~ " ; o n . ~ ' Will-lam F, 3uckley Jr., ''The S p i r i t of t h e Saur," -3 N R December 8 , 1972, pp. 1348, 1366; Will iam F. Buckley 3p., he Birthrate," IW, Piarch 23 , 1965, p. 231; BuckPoy, "A Playboy J n t e r v S e ~ , ~ ~ Inve3.p$S.n~, p. 55.
A. PRIMARY SOURCES
Bucklay, Y,'SI l Ic.n F'. , Jr. Cruisis S p a d . Bern York: G , P. Butnamr s Sonc , 3.971. -
. E,;CCE%-\O~? Eve and Other Contsm~orarg Ballads. ---*-- - -
Nov York: G p 2 . ~ u t n a f i Sons, 1 9 ' ? r
FDUF -3cf'orr.s. New York: G . PI Putnaml s Sons, - ~rn. God and Kan a t Yale. Chiaa3o: Henry Regnery Co., - - _ I - -
1951.
. -- T h s -- lGoverior Listeth. Xew York: Cr. P. Putnamts Sons, 19'/0.
. Tnv-'nSn,% We \'Jill Go, Wew York: 0, P. nttnaml s -. . --- Sons, 19'12,
. Thr) Jemele~ts a. Wew York: G. P. Putnamts e, . . -
Sons, 39bd.
-,&.-a B P ? + : ~ l ~ o ~ a r n HZPS tho Aura of Victory. The -
[rl.ri~adel;hisl Cve~ring B u l l e t in, June 5 , 5972, p. 9.
. Qur~t-,.i;-lo.m frorn Chalman B i l l , ed. David Franke. m.. - * .s,m_C --.-- __Ur- * -.--PI
Now R ~ c i i ~ ,.l.o, X cvJ York: rli~lirigt03 House, 1970.
'.>.t..." .I., .,~%!.-cG b;" _and RS&%. Mew YoP~: G. P. pdtnaTL9 2 .jo**.~ L$jGa a ,. 9
- . **,.>...,.- Pa'\?i:r..r* ..-- &L... +\o L Qv.oan, New York: Doubleday and Co., k Y ' / . j e
7; -~,l.;- - '. .' ..' n -..- .. -L.L, . ..-.A . of N e w York: The Viking 7z3, ?;hJc ,, i';;i;rG*
;; -" -., ,,*- L, c,,~: L S b e r a l l : ~ . N e w York: Ivan Obolensky,
I nc . : C J = , 19 6 1.
- . "Vk~y GabbrsPth-hatLng Is an Impassible Activity ." El%, O c t s b s r 17, 1969, p . 12. - The Cer?r,~ittee and Its Critics. New York: 9 edo -,--
G. P. Pitnamvs Sons, 1 9 5 2 7 - BucIcley, WILliam Fa, Jr, and Bozell, Brent, ' McCarthy and
H i n Ensnias. Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., LY54.
F P r i n ~ Lina, PBS-TV, January 8, 1974,
Natfonal Reatam, January 26, 1957-gay 10, 1974.
Be SECONDARY SOURCES
1. Books
Campbell, Xar1~r-r~ Sshru, Critiques of Contom m a r Rhetoric. Bolnont, Col:Poynia: ladsworth be hc., 1972,
The Constftutlion o f 'tha Un i t ed States of America - ___.-_I - Durkhelm, E m i l e , Ths EPsmontar;y_ Foms of the Religious
L i f e . Neiv Y O ~ F ~ T I I G G X T ~ G - , T Q K CL
Durkhofm, EraLle, and Xnuss, UarceP. Primitive ClnssificatSsn, -_--- e d , Rodney Needham. Chicago: The UnZvereSsy of ChLeago Press, 1963.
Fortes, b?ayorG 3&~c"~hip and the Sooial - Order, Chicago: Aldfne 1%b19ching C O ~ L ~ .
EaU, YJal.ter E'i;eLps, and Davlis, WPlliam Steams. The Cocrsc - of -a- 1.'~:~;13;73 ,-%_ __L__ Sfnee lFdaterloo. New York: ~ p w t o n - Cenku~g-CpoPt3, Inc., 1957,
Howland, C m % ; 3sms, Irving L.; and Kslley, Haro ld H, COP.. . .; 4 p. ,. ,? ?. .$- ., . .L,,,~ -." E!,:T~ P O T S U ~ B % on . N e w Raven: Yale --I. --" .... I:--*-.-; - Qi11-q~p31:tiy - r--,o?tl d L i 3 l-$z3 0
Levy-3z~aM., Dde-ils;-., -,, ?simitive p.r -- I1!~nt t4 ,12~ tram. Ltlisn A , C l a r ~ , l!~;; YsX'k: ' ~ ' Y L C ~ & C X ? ~ I ~ ~ ~ O . ~ 1923.
Eukas, S t e ~ ~ a n , -...-- ?;-5-ln .- T3r~~l&eLm, H i 3 Lf f et and Work. N e w York: Ear.;sr ;nd - i ? ~ b - ~ l s k e P s ~ ~ -
Lnina, Henry S.~mr~.s?. 4.ccten4 Law. Near York: Henry X o l t and Co*, 1388. London: J * Murray, 1930,
Marham, Charlss EZ.E:~ Ths Buoklsvs , A Family Examined, -- --- N e w Yorl:: X111Fns 'lo~row and Co., T n r f i ' 7 3 .
Morison, S a ~ ~ s M l i o t , and Comager, Henry Steele . G r o v ~ t l i of t h c J . r n ~ ~ ~ i c a n R e u b l i c . 2 v o l s . New York: Oxford X.~-:TSFL~'~TS*C
On the 2;arl.x ?1r:-~cr,:;9.0n of the C l t f zon-Os~atsr , by Q u i n t l l i a n , - -LI .,...A --- * L 1. .-#-l-̂- -.. .-- -.&
t r a n s , thd &:;v.~:r~nd John Ss iby l'b'atson. e d . James J. Murphy. Indianapolf 8: The 3obbs- erri ill Co., Inc . , 1965.
Parsons, T,, and S h i l s , 3. A , (eds.) Toward A General T h e ~ s cis' A c t Lon. Cambridge: Harvnrd ~ ~ n i 3 e ~ r e s s , T95~ .
PerePman, CIi , , and OPbrochts-Tyteca, L, The N e w Rheto~ic, -- A T r o n t l s c an X~qunentatSon. N o t r e Dam, Indiana: - ---a -- c-...- "
~n= i ty of' K o t m f k m s boss, 1969.
Pribram, K a r l , @ . m f l i c t m Pat te rns of Thought. v v - - -I- -
Washington: Y ~ ~ ~ L L C E L ~ I T ~ ~ ~ S i+ress, 1939.
The Rhetoroics 02 A;~is t a tPe , t rans , Lane Coopar. N e w York: - -7 - ----- W p p l e t e n - ~ c : ~ t u ~ - y - ~ ~ f i ~ t s Inc,, 1932,
E l a y ~ fig% _Sonnets, a d o G. B. Yor~: Barcourt, Brace and Co., 1948.
Stewart, Edrrard C, Arr?rp*Fcara C u l t u r a l Patterns: ",I l t u r a 'F. P ;': ~2 i i X G X i EC t B b ~ F @ - : - m 3 1 ---.-..C- a=-.- ..i--- - d .-- - - -.a f o r ~ & c m , ~ i o n a l L5ducatlon, 1971.
Thonsuen, L o s t o p , cnd B e i r d , Craig. S ~ e e c h Criticism, New York: Tho Ronald Press Co., l@l-r
Tonnbes, Psrdin~:m3, % ~ ~ ~ i t y and Socf etg , ed. and t r ans , CbrPes ~ o s ~ i s . ~asC~ansiwir:Gni~an S t a t e
, i A SIist0k;g of ths Chr4 s-bfan Church. - ----a V" '%-
~ 6 ~ 4 yo~!.:: 2hgi~133 ~~Tibnep l s Sons, 1 9 5 9 7
\Yeberm, ;dax, <:, gyLyJ.e;,yii? a& Institution Bu%ldin~ ed. and L S e ." + ~ ~ i L C ~ s i n d t . m c a g o : ThZTXG?Gity of Chicago P ~ ~ c s ; , 1968,
Werner, H, -- Gs-lv:.r~t - . ive -- 13sycholoa of Mental Development. N e w York: ~ o k . bslieg and Sons, m48.
TAhyte, W i l l i u s H,, Jr. TheVOr.anization IJTan. New York: Doubleday m d C o o p 1~,*56.
-
Assoc ia ted Press d iups tch . Lsncnster [ ~ e n n s ~ l v a n i a j ~ e w - E r a J u l y Zcjy 1971, p, 19. -'
Cshen, Rossl30, "Cor7icepB;ual Styles, Cul ture C o n f l i c t , and Nonverbal Tasts af In t e l l i gence .' American A 2 t b ~ p o l o ~ i c % --I- 7 1 (1969) : 828-56 .
Gubois, L. C1z,:,g-kon. "Tho Fimt Famfly sf Conservat fsm. ' ' 0-3 1h8 X C ~ W 'Yc:P?C TSrnas S2ig~ZPne, August 9, 1970, pp. 27-38, _ _ L -
. ''A CognStlve Approach to the P.nalysis of Cultures an?-of Cul tu r8 Change." General Systems 11 (1966): 115-32
"Tho Two F ~ C S S of Nationalism." Comparatfve T Z E e e c ~ - , 1 s t u d i o s (1970).
The Yew York T i m s August 2Q, 9973.; July 38, 1975. - - - I 9
"The mip per.'' T i r e , November 3, 1967, pp, 41-72.
Tonpe-in-Cheek Candidat@ - L i f e , Septamber 37, 1965, p . 54.
Br.ool;;s o Y..:ses --. '5 . , JP. "il Study of Ylilliam. F', Buckley Jr . I s Q-.-,- , , Jr"u. <;i:ii ;. ,, -2 Auac5 -.. Sce of Pe?sunsSon," 'iTnp1biishad '".. <. J- .-,-n y I. .;3i;- i.:, I..uo b L s a cniversTty of E;'10r49dzz, 1967.
0 ,
Llador, Thnc:c,s 7 i f G o ~ i c ) i a n ~ s and God: A S u ~ k s i a n V i e w of r : ! ~ - ~ s r s m * - - ? 3zskley," UaplibSSshod Doctor's dissertation, 30r th~~! r s s s~-~ 'Uairek-sity, 1966.
Ory, CnroLyn '::Ac, "A Ehetor ienl Analysfa sf Three Speeches by I'J'illin:;.. E':taznZr Buckley Jr, , V B U a p b l i s h e d Master ' s thesis , Louisfzna S t a t e Universf ty, 1967.