WFB wrote about his experience with Vidal in 1968 here, (search for "experiencing Gore Vidal") while Vidal responded here.
Reading the 2 Esquire articles (note: WFB sued Vidal for libel) WFB is the clear winner. Vidal article is nothing more than name calling, mostly unsupported or over-the-top, while WFB shows Vidal to be a liar and almost hysterical.
The two men truly did not like each other. WFB never had Vidal on Firing line, didn't want to debate Vidal in 1968 (ABC chose him out of list of 10 possible WFB opponents) and never talked or debated him again in 40 years. From WFB's article it appears they never socialized and their pre-1968 encounters were limited to appearing together once on the David Susskind show and debating at the Republican Convention in 1964.
Further, I can't find a single column or article by WFB on Vidal after 1972 -when the lawsuit was settled. And I've listened to many WFB interviews over the years and whenever Vidal was mentioned he would just utter a mild and very brief dismissive comment (example: "Vidal is not one of my favorite people").
Showing posts with label WFB. Show all posts
Showing posts with label WFB. Show all posts
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Sunday, March 02, 2008
Notes on WFB
Like many I came to conservatism through WFB, National Review, and firing line. I raced to the library every two weeks to read NR, and at one point had every WFB book except for "McCarthy and his Enemies".
However, in the 1980's WFB began to lose interest in Politics and I began to lose in interest in him. I started to Skim not read - NR. I felt his columns became predictable, superficial and without passion. In 1988 I welcomed Firing line changing to a 1/2 hour format but soon found even 30 minutes too boring. By 1990 I had stopped watching all together.Politically speaking he went into semi-retirement in 1988-1989 and full retirement 10 years later. (Not surprising since he was had been involved in politics since 1951 and was 65 in 1990).
Sadly, he should have retired completely in 1989 since afterwards he only spoke on the side of establishment. He supported George Bush in '92 and joined Abe Rosenthal and the NYT's in attacking Buchanan as an "anti-semite." He supported Dole in'96 and Bush II in 2000 and 2004. No longer the rebel but an old, tired Yale Blue blood supporting the Republican establishment. On immigration he was AWOL, on trade he was with Wall Street. The cultural issues, even abortion, seemed to bore him. He fired Sullivan as editor in 1997 for being anti-immigrant, and Coulter in 2001 for being too controversial. And in 2003 when Frum smeared Novak (one of our greatest conservative columnists) as "unpatriotic" WFB said nothing.
Not surprisingly, many haven't forgotten. Coulter's column on WFB lacked warmth, and neither Novak, Buchanan, or Chronicles has written about his death. Others have restricted themselves to talking about what a great man he was on a personal level while others Peter Brimelow of VDARE - and a former NR Buckley associate - has written a particularly negative column.
Tenanhaus, his official biographer, states he refused to talk politics unless "someone paid him to" - which didn't surprise me at all.
However, in the 1980's WFB began to lose interest in Politics and I began to lose in interest in him. I started to Skim not read - NR. I felt his columns became predictable, superficial and without passion. In 1988 I welcomed Firing line changing to a 1/2 hour format but soon found even 30 minutes too boring. By 1990 I had stopped watching all together.Politically speaking he went into semi-retirement in 1988-1989 and full retirement 10 years later. (Not surprising since he was had been involved in politics since 1951 and was 65 in 1990).
Sadly, he should have retired completely in 1989 since afterwards he only spoke on the side of establishment. He supported George Bush in '92 and joined Abe Rosenthal and the NYT's in attacking Buchanan as an "anti-semite." He supported Dole in'96 and Bush II in 2000 and 2004. No longer the rebel but an old, tired Yale Blue blood supporting the Republican establishment. On immigration he was AWOL, on trade he was with Wall Street. The cultural issues, even abortion, seemed to bore him. He fired Sullivan as editor in 1997 for being anti-immigrant, and Coulter in 2001 for being too controversial. And in 2003 when Frum smeared Novak (one of our greatest conservative columnists) as "unpatriotic" WFB said nothing.
Not surprisingly, many haven't forgotten. Coulter's column on WFB lacked warmth, and neither Novak, Buchanan, or Chronicles has written about his death. Others have restricted themselves to talking about what a great man he was on a personal level while others Peter Brimelow of VDARE - and a former NR Buckley associate - has written a particularly negative column.
Tenanhaus, his official biographer, states he refused to talk politics unless "someone paid him to" - which didn't surprise me at all.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Tanenhaus Discusses WFB
An excellent Q&A in the NYT reveling much about WFB, Tanenhaus, and the NYT's readership.
The questioners seem obsessed with Buckley's position on "civil rights" and minorities. I counted almost 10 of the 30 something questions related to such ancient topics as "Brown v. Board" and "Segregation". Others wanted to know Buckley's position on Jews (He was in favor of them) and Gays (he was in favor of them, except for Gore Vidal).
I used to wonder what liberals would talk/write about when racism more or less died in this country - and now I know. They'll just keep talking about racism in the past. They just won't let the subject go or move on. To them its always 1965 and they're the brave liberals battling "Bull Conner" and his police dogs and helping poor black folks.
The questioners seem obsessed with Buckley's position on "civil rights" and minorities. I counted almost 10 of the 30 something questions related to such ancient topics as "Brown v. Board" and "Segregation". Others wanted to know Buckley's position on Jews (He was in favor of them) and Gays (he was in favor of them, except for Gore Vidal).
I used to wonder what liberals would talk/write about when racism more or less died in this country - and now I know. They'll just keep talking about racism in the past. They just won't let the subject go or move on. To them its always 1965 and they're the brave liberals battling "Bull Conner" and his police dogs and helping poor black folks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)