Monday, December 12, 2011

Who sits in the William F. Buckley Chair of Conservatism?

William F. Buckley, Father of the Conservative Movement w/ President George W Bush (2005)
It seems since William Buckley died, there have been a few figures who want to decide who gets to be a Conservative.

Here's a hint that you are not William F. Buckley material (riffing off of Jeff Foxworthy's "You might be a Redneck if..."): 

1) If you think your Conservatism is the ONLY Conservatism in existence and use that to support  Anti-Israel, Liberal Democratic Presidents -- YOU ARE NOT A CONSERVATIVE. (Andrew Sullivan);

2) If you spend your time writing Anti Republican pieces in Magazines that have never supported Republicans under fire -- YOU ARE NOT A CONSERVATIVE (David Frum);

3) If you never campaigned (either walking or calling) for a Republican candidate or never built a coalition for a Republican idea then write who should or should not be a Communicator for the Right  (and also support Anti Israel writers such as Andrew Sullivan) -- YOU ARE NOT A CONSERVATIVE (Conor Friedersdorf)

4) If you write a column in a newspaper that has not endorsed Republicans for President since the 1950's, YOU ARE NOT A CONSERVATIVE (David Brooks)

And finally:

5) If your career as a Republican Columnist is about attacking other Republicans, YOU ARE NOT A CONSERVATIVE (Kathleen Parker and Jennifer Rubin)

So, who deserves to sit in the William F. Buckley Chair for Conservatism?

Here are a few basics that we Conservatives should look for:

A) William Buckley ran for office.  Yes, he lost, but he put his views out there.  Anyone who wants to sit in judgement of other members of the Right cannot be a journalist, but a candidate first.

B) Buckley spent his life, loving (in his first book) and supporting America (in the CIA), expats need not apply.  The American culture has something few expats understand -- hence why Sullivan and Frum are on the outs.  If you are an expat in politics, 95% of the time, you work for the Democrats (but with Frum and Sullivan, that's a given)

C) If you are not a communicator (i.e. Rush, Levin or Hannity), come up with a better show or leave them alone.  Every party needs Fire Breathers, they provide a role so those in the trenches of politics can do their job. Heck, Buckley supported Rush.

D) If you are a candidate or on a candidates staff and dis the Conservative new media, you are not a candidate worth voting for.  Buckley saw the rise of Talk radio and brought the Establishment behind this New Media.  Where are the funders for DaTechGuy, RS McCain or even the Valley? Romney, not a Conservative, nor worthy of the chair. 

E) Final thing: Support the "local Yokels," on the ground.  That is where the Election battles play out.  If we here in Los Angeles and California can have people fund our Party Structures, a new battlefront will open up. 

Even the Ghost of William Buckley can support that.

But, wait! I hear the audience chirping, why doesn't JSF take the Chair?  

Simple, that is not my role.  The person who sits in the WFB Chair must have support from candidates, Bloggers, activists and Staffers.  I am not that person.  

(I want to flip Los Angeles and California and then work on the Hill for an California Congressman or woman doing Appropriations work -- then write books and lobby. Thus, I cannot ascend to the Chair.)

My question: Who should be nominated for the William F. Buckley Chair for Conservatism? Tell me why and what their support base is.

1 comment:

  1. -That's a very tough question. Mr. Buckley was in many ways unique. I'm stumped. Thank God, we have our Sam Adams [Andrew Breitbart] and our James Madison [Jeff Goldstein].

    -Regarding Point 1 in the first section: Russell Kirk wrote:
    Perhaps it would be well, most of the time, to use this word “conservative” as an adjective chiefly. For there exists no Model Conservative, and conservatism is the negation of ideology: it is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the civil social order.

    The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata. It is almost true that a conservative may be defined as a person who thinks himself such. The conservative movement or body of opinion can accommodate a considerable diversity of views on a good many subjects, there being no Test Act or Thirty-Nine Articles of the conservative creed.

    In essence, the conservative person is simply one who finds the permanent things more pleasing than Chaos and Old Night. (Yet conservatives know, with Burke, that healthy “change is the means of our preservation.”)....


Welcome to the Valley! Please comment about the post and keep to the subject.

There is only one person (JSF) keeping track of comments, so as long as what you write is civil and close to the purpose of the post, you will see it.

Keep this in mind: Politics should not be Personal; then you have a place here.

Write! History will remember your words!


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...