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.