Reasoned arguments according to Buckley

Christopher Buckley follows up his endorsement of Obama with a post detailing his departure from National Review, which is somewhat interesting as it was founded by his father, one of the deans of the modern conservative movement in America. I’m not an expert on William F. Buckley, but I suspect he might have had higher standards for “a reasoned argument,” which is how the younger Buckley describes his “conservative case for Obama.”

As I pointed out earlier, Buckley’s case comprises mainly distaste for Sarah Palin and the people interested in learning about Obama’s associations and governing principles. He seems to believe that Obama will have an epiphany upon election and not actually enact the policies he’s campaigned on for a year and a half. Demeaning Sarah Palin and ignoring the policy ideals of the two candidates, surprise, surprise, was not well received by the readers of National Review.

Rich Lowry at the Corner called Buckley out on the way he presented his departure. This seems to have prompted a headline change for Buckley’s post, though the original implication is still seen in the URL. And the rest of his post, complete with hyperbole pointed out by Lowry, remains intact. It’s an unfortunate parting, assuming Mr. Buckley is the basically conservative-libertarian he claims to be. His social standing is secure for the next administration, at any rate. I wonder how much that had to do with it. But since motive attribution is thin ice, I’m sure I’ll never know to any satisfaction.


Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: