William F. Buckley, Jr. and the Pleasures of Pomposity
Dear Mr Buckley:
You are one of the leading conservatives in this country, but you wear your hair like a way-out liberal hippy. It is nasty looking, unkempt, and subtracts tremendously from your appearance. You would be a fairly good looking man if you would get a haircut — not necessarily crew like your brother [Senator Buckley]. If you really are conservative, why don’t you make yourself look like one?
Fellow Conservative
Dear Fellow Conservative: If I were also good looking, don’t you think it would all be just too much? Cordially, WFB
At the library the other day I picked up a collection of letters to the editor and responses from National Review, the conservative magazine founded and, for forty years, edited by William F. Buckley, Jr.
I had never read much from William Buckley (other than his language advice in the newspaper), but I have read National Review a few times, and the magazine has always made me uneasy. Side by side within its pages might be an informative article full of surprising good sense - a pleasure to read - while the next article might be a political screed listing and attacking the beliefs of unquoted -ists and -isms, full of straw man arguments tendentious enough to make my eyes bleed.
But this little collection of the published letters to the editor of NR is a quick and entertaining read, not least because of Buckley’s verbal swagger. His wit and vocabulary were impressive, but more than that, he had an opinion on almost everything, and was willing to state it with confidence. He suffered from what Alister McGrath calls, in reference to Richard Dawkins, the “delusion of omnicompetence.”
And after reading this book, it occurred to me that pomposity can be a pretty entertaining thing. No one can be well-read and well-informed on every subject, but sometimes arresting, entertaining prose can result from a willingness to make an ass of oneself.
While sometimes I agree with Buckley, and sometimes disagree, or even find him infuriating, I can’t help but envy his style. There is a part of me that wishes I could manage the pomp and swagger, the seeming certainty of every opinion, the delight in summing up his opponents’ shortcomings and blunders.
It would make one hell of a blog, wouldn’t it?
But my pomposity just doesn’t pass muster. It lacks the intensity necessary for entertainment, and subsides instead into a rather dull conceit. I’m smugly certain that I’m smart, but I’m never quite convinced that my side of the argument is the only one possible for rational people.
Worst of all, I feel a little guilty if I’m witty enough to humiliate someone.
Pesky conscience.
Mr. Buckley: You are the mouthpiece of that evil rabble that depends on fraud, perjury, dirty tricks, anything at all that suits their purposes.
I would trust a snake before I would trust you or anybody you support.
A. Ruesthe
Dear Mr. Ruesthe: What would you do if I supported the snake? Cordially, WFB
suburbancorrespondent
I had taken that book (”Cancel Your Own Damn Subscription,” right?) out of the library, but I never got around to it. Maybe I’ll give it another try.
Oh, and the reasons you stated for not writing that way? The same reason that women are not as prominently figured on op-ed pages in major newspapers. They’re not as willing to put themselves “out there” as men are, and/or they are reluctant to offend anyone. My newspaper had an article about it.
Sherri E.
I’m smugly certain that I’m smart, but I’m never quite convinced that my side of the argument is the only one possible for rational people.
Exactly. The smug assurance of rightness, that sense of being ensconced securely in the only right way to think, that attitude that I have been used to refer to as “epistemological arrogance” is why I am reluctant to enter into debates on the internet. It is also why I lost patience with my fellow philosophy majors (largely male) as an undergrad. I just got bored with all the d***-waving, you know?
It is also, just for the record, a major propellant in my move away from reformed theology– or rather, my move away from the circles which are really enthusiastic about it.
Veronica Mitchell
Sherri, I am enthusiastic about Reformed theology, but I still know what you mean. There is a certain kind of person for whom Reformed theology is merely the protective barricade over which they lob conversational grenades at their enemies. A bit absurd given that a central feature of Reformed theology is supposed to be HUMILITY.
Kimberly
This post reminds me why I always turned to the letters first in NR. Also why I actually like Rush. I really don’t think that Buckley or Rush take themselves seriously. People who think they (B and R) are serious about the smugness get apoplectic. And start babbling and screaming. And Buckley (may he rest in peace) and Rush chuckle as they run to the bank.
I think the only way one can get away with such smugness without being totally insufferable is if one is a) actually smart, which is waay different than thinking one is smart, and b) has a sense of humor about it. Al Gore, for instance, is neither. And is totally insufferable. And John Kerry. Just to name two. And probably most of Sherri’s fellow philosophy majors.
Veronica Mitchell
Kimberly, smugness can be good theater, but that doesn’t always mean that the performer is just performing. I can almost believe that Buckley was just putting on a show, but you will never convince me of the same about Rush. The man has had three wives for a reason.
Kimberly
Well, I will concede that continued smugness does not a good husband make. Or, at least continued smugness without any grain of selflessness.
And I don’t think either of them was putting on “just” a show, but there is a certain lightness to their demeanor (can writing have a demeanor) that makes me able to take the potential insufferablity with a grain of salt.
AND, I don’t have to live with either, eh?
JulieC
I don’t think I’d want a real-life friend with this level of pomposity. I don’t think I could stay friends with them for very long. BUT, it is so fun to read when I don’t have to live with them, or know any of the people they are dismantling.
Signing the responses with the calm “Cordially,” just makes them funnier to me somehow.
Sue
Remember that friends episode? Where Phoebe gets Ross to say that maybe perhaps possibly there is a smidgeon of a chance that evolution isn’t a reality? That’s what this conversation reminds me of.
I can’t read or listen to pundits. They’re so willing to follow their argument to illogical ends. Even if you know they must know that their argument breaks down at some point, they aren’t willing to concede it, ever. And it makes me nuts.
I know what you mean about the confidence though. I sometimes wish I had the ability to just put it out there and not worry about what people were going to say to or about me as a result. I don’t like having to defend my opinions. It’s not that I don’t have the confidence in my knowledge, it’s more that it’s just plain old upsetting. I’m thin-skinned.
Heidi
I think the willingness to acknowledge that the other point of view might have some valid arguments, concerns, or rational is a trait I wish more people (especially politicos) would nurture.
It (the willingness to concede that the other side just might have some validity) leads to more thoughtful discussion and less ranting. And good heavens, we could all use less ranting.
Heidi
Durr. Rationale. You knew that, though.
brother
Veronica,
You should read what Christopher Buckley wrote about his father in National Review after he passed away. It will indeed convince you that WFB was driven in everything not just in his opinions (the “Captain Crunch” nick name about WFP will have you laughing). WFB was a very humorous man and had a creative side as a father that Az would appreciate. The other thing you will learn is that he was a very gracious man in his interactions with people who did not share his beliefs. Gracious and “omnicompetence”. It’s easy to miss the graciousness in his responses to readers trying to pull his chain.
I do not classify Rush in the same league with WFB. While both advocate conservative positions, Rush is a populist and an entertainer first. Are you sure about wife #3? I thought he as on wife #2. I could be behind the times in Afghanistan
Having been a subscriber (on and off) to NR over the last 20 years, NR is a much better read than any of the opinion journals on the left. It generally provides facts over shrill attacks on their political opponents so I’d question your comments about the “the next article might be a political screed listing and attacking the beliefs of unquoted -ists and -isms, full of straw man arguments tendentious enough to make my eyes bleed.” In 20 years I didn’t find very many articles I’d put in that category (I know we draw a different line in the political sand). I am sure some did fall into that category, but NR generally took the high road in the political debate between the right and left.
It is silly to acknowledge irrational positions as being worthy of debate. WFB’s “Firing Line” debate series punched numerous holes in many of those irrational ideas that the left likes to float. Today the left’s lies keeps Rush a well paid member of the entertainment “talk-radio” business.
brother
lyrl
This post reminded me of a couple of “Et Tu?” Jen’s writings: her evolving views on cell phone usage, and some reflections on the positive effects of Christianity on her outlook. In the second link, she says of her pre-Christianity days:
While the kind of writing described in Veronica’s post is entertaining, I don’t know that it’s healthy for either the writer or the audience.
Veronica Mitchell
Lyrl, I think the distinction between when this style is “healthy” and when it isn’t is determined by our willingness to subject ourselves to our own pillory. Skewering flaws and intellectual blunders in others is qualitatively different when we also skewer those same flaws in ourselves.
The author of the biblical book of Proverbs, for example, had no problem calling a fool a fool. If all such authorial displays are unhealthy, than much of the Bible is really, really bad for us.
Beck
Being pompous is funny ON PAPER. In real life, I don’t like making people feel dumb. And I also spell horribly, which sort of diminishes my ability to dazzle people with my pomposity.