It looks like Time magazine has dispensed with the quaint custom of showing at least a little respect for the recently deceased. This story by Richard Corliss begins a long sneer in the direction of William F. Buckley, Jr. starting with its very title, "William F. Buckley: Mandarin of Right-Wing TV." From that low point, Corliss continues his descent into his ill-mannered septic tank as he blames Buckley for inspiring what Corliss describes as "partisan political harangue as infotainment" following an appearance on the Jack Paar show in 1962:
Few viewers realized that those two evenings 46 years ago would birth a durable TV genre: the partisan political harangue as infotainment. The Left, in Vidal's image, never took hold, but Buckley soon set up shop at PBS, of all places, hosting the primordial political chat show Firing Line. From that, and from Buckley's blithe, castrating wit, a horde of right-wing radio spielers and Fox News ideologues, not to mention the Manichean shouters on The McLaughlin Report and many a Sunday panel show.
Corliss continues his attack on Buckley by suggesting that he was a trickster whose goal was to win a debate at all costs:
His manner suggested that he was 100% right — right as in correct — and all who opposed him were fools or brigands. It's an old debater's trick, and he was the master debater. Like another '60s icon, Vince Lombardi, he believed that winning was the only thing. Your rival is not to be charmed so much as crushed.
How about the trick of attacking an opponent when he is no longer alive to answer back, Corliss? The poison pen Time writer continues his attack upon the recently deceased by suggesting that Buckley inspired the right to win in the battle of ideas with mere showmanship:
For a while, the tactic didn't win Buckley many adherents. But it worked in the long run. As the conservative movement took hold, thanks in large part to his biweekly magazine National Review, conservatives began to speak out more forcefully, belligerently, confidently. By the '80s they had most of the smarties, while liberals still wallowed in position-paper platitudes. What had the right learned from Buckley? The importance of showmanship.
Corliss, when not kicking dirt into Buckley's grave, takes a few potshots at other conservatives such as by mischaracterizing Rush Limbaugh as some mere loudmouthed redneck:
None, though, had Buckley's strangely seductive, amusingly upper-class persona. In tone and aplomb, he was Leslie Howard to Rush Limbaugh's Larry the Cable Guy, a caviar-and-truffles type to Sean Hannity's Lunchpail Joe. In that sense, Buckley was a throwback even before the 1960s, to a breed of would-be royalists stranded in the tight-lipped New World. The anglophilia of this well-off son of Irish immigrants made him an anachronistic figure of fun when he ran for Mayor of New York City — the voters preferred earthy sorts like Ed Koch to Buckley's Edward VIII airs — and a pleasant anachronism in his later career as conservative elder statesman, his orotundity drowned out by the noise of the Limbaughs.
Corliss concludes with a parting "right-wing" shot at Buckley:
But that only proved Buckley's importance as a political and cultural innovator. His ear-catching right-wing eloquence would never have gone out of style if he hadn't been successful in creating it.
One can't help but wonder if William F. Buckley is somewhere out there, reading the Corliss hit piece with bemusement. An impish grin on his face and a twinkle in his eyes as he prepares to deliver a devasting Buckleyan riposte with his "ear-catching right-wing eloquence."
UPDATE: In addition to his juvenile sneering at William F. Buckley, Jr., Richard Corliss is as lacking in facts as he is in decent manners. Neither of Buckley's parents were Irish immigrants. Both were born in America. His mother was not only not an Irish immigrant but was of Swiss-German descent. Buckely did not run against Ed Koch for mayor in 1965. In fact, Koch didn't run for mayor of New York until 1977.
—P.J. Gladnick is a freelance writer and creator of the DUmmie FUnnies blog.



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
This is why the right keeps
February 28, 2008 - 09:56 ET by EdhenryThis is why the right keeps winning, Buckley, Schlaffley, Reagan, Bush 43, Rush. Because this is the best that the left has: weak, idea-less wimps whose best asset is distortion, if not outright lying.
The Idelologue Doth Protest too Much
February 28, 2008 - 10:00 ET by allanfCorliss manages to be both disrespectful and ignorant. He displays no grasp of Buckley or what he stood for. Buckley was a gentleman. The one with the harangue's is Corliss.
It almost seems like he's
February 28, 2008 - 10:19 ET by Hero SquadIt almost seems like he's making a very poor attempt at emulating Buckley's style. It comes across as basically a journalist attempting to debate someone he knows can no longer respond. Classy.
*****
"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will
Only Liberals have a right
February 28, 2008 - 10:35 ET by mattmOnly Liberals have a right to speak.
Addendum (from another post):
This demonstrates the arrogant attitude of MSM types who seem to believe that they are the arbiters of what is just and right.
To them, Liberalism is simply what is. Their definitions of terms and interpretations of events and their points of view are the accepted dogma. That's it.
Anyone who doesn't accept their view as canon law is a heretic. Buckley was a heretic to them, but they can admire him for his intellect and eloquence, but only because they'd look foolish if they tried to deny it.
They can easily mock Limbaugh, because he's "loud" and they have been demonizing him since day one. They can't get away with that with Buckley, so they take a more subtle tack.
Trying to emulate Buckley?
February 28, 2008 - 10:14 ET by pocomocoMy sense in reading this guys comments was jeolousy and a man with a ten cent brain trying to emulate Buckley by using ten dollar words.
The pages of his Thesaurus must be dog-eared.
Richard Corliss
February 28, 2008 - 10:20 ET by P.J. GladnickI just found out that Richard Corliss used to work at the National Review. He didn't mention that in his screed. Any theories as to what made Corliss so bitter towards William F. Buckley?
Ever notice that most leftists go right to the name-calling
February 28, 2008 - 10:33 ET by Iowa BoyIt's like reading the script to "Pee-Wee's Big Adventure": "I know you are but what am I?"
When they cannot debate liberalism with conservatism, liberals go right to snarky comments like comparing Mr. Limbaugh with the Larry the Cable Guy (who's also damned funny) or Mr. Hannity to a Lunchpail Joe. (My dad carried a lunchpail to work as an electrician for 30 years).
Corliss comments are those which might be written by an effite, elistist snob. Mr Buckley would never have talked down like that to a man like my dad.
"That's just my opinion. I could be wrong." - Dennis Miller
Firing Line
February 28, 2008 - 10:38 ET by P.J. GladnickMy mother is a liberal (we avoid talking on the topic of politics) but she was also a huge fan of Firing Line. She loved watching it because of its intellectual nature, not because it was some sort of "partisan political harangue as infotainment" as Corliss mischaracterized it. If it was such a horrible show, why did so many liberals appear on it and return time and time again? Sorry, Corliss, you struck out bigtime on this one.
You are spot on, Iowa Boy!
February 28, 2008 - 10:39 ET by motherbeltYou are spot on, Iowa Boy! Libs are incapable of making an argument (even on the rare occasion when they have a good point) without tossing in a gratuitous slap at someone's looks, or social standing, or even the way they dress. It's pathetic. It's like arguing with second-graders.
Any day now I expect one to end an argument with "And your mother wears combat boots! So there!"
Richard Corliss, I looked
February 28, 2008 - 10:42 ET by USA4freedomRichard Corliss,
I looked him up because I have never heard of him. I find in wikipedia, that one of his favorite movies was Finding Nemo.
A real mental heavyweight.
Well.. I think I can rest my case.
Ronald Reagan, 1962: I did not leave the Democratic party, the party left me.
Insert: your name, 2008, and the Republican party.
Sophomoric Corliss
February 28, 2008 - 11:02 ET by P.J. GladnickSpeaking of arguing like second-graders. Note this bit of sophomoric "wit" from Corliss:
It's an old debater's trick, and he was the master debater.
Get it? "Master debater." Har-har! That might be an example of "wit" among sophomoric kids but a reviewer for Time Magazine? Corliss' childishness is embarrassing.
It's more insidious than
February 28, 2008 - 11:20 ET by mattmIt's more insidious than just that. It is a rhetorical tactic designed to dismiss the substance of Buckley's message.
It's like when they called Reagan a "great communicator." That was not a compliment. It was a way of dismissing and disregarding his message - so they can avoid debating the actual issues, and focus on irrelevant superficialities.
so they can avoid debating
February 28, 2008 - 12:20 ET by motherbeltso they can avoid debating the actual issues, and focus on irrelevant superficialities.
SOP for liberals
As WFB himself put it:
February 28, 2008 - 14:47 ET by mattm“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
In today's looking glass,
February 28, 2008 - 14:45 ET by ConservativeRexIn today's looking glass, liberals ARE allowed to question someones looks, if that someone is a Conservative. Mostly, libs are pathetic.
If alive WFB might have responded to Corliss' screed in the way he answered a question about Jesse Jackson.
When asked if he had called Jesse Jackson an ignoramus he responded--"if I didn't, I should have".
Buckley and liberals
February 28, 2008 - 11:18 ET by pocomocoI watched Buckley for years and, yes, he had many liberals on. He never berated them but attempted to show them the fallacies in their thinking.
None of them, of course, had their minds changed as it a tenet of liberalism that they don’t want to be confused with facts because it is how they ‘feel’ that really matters.
But, inspite of his attempts, they kept coming back for more assuming, I would guess, that they really liked him.
The most obstreperous were, of course, John Kenneth Galbraith, who became a long time friend, and Gore Vidal, who Buckley found to be a putrid person.
as mayor
February 28, 2008 - 11:12 ET by rubberpelletfrancisInteresting that Corliss wrote the people of NYC chose earthy Koch over Buckley. Buckley ran as an opposition figure to the very liberal republican John Lindsey in a three way race with dem Abe Beame. Lindsey won and proceeded to guide NYC into bankruptcy, in addition to suffering soaring crime rates. Koch later won running to the right of everybody as a law and order, tight budget democrat. And much closer to Buckleys mindset than Lindsey's.
This guy as usual is a total
February 28, 2008 - 11:50 ET by Ryan Mc.This guy as usual is a total hypocrit. He says Buckley used showmanship over facts, then uses no examples, no facts. Hmmm I guess his entire piece was showmanship and name calling.
Another nail in the liberal coffin
February 28, 2008 - 11:50 ET by Tom1969caFirst of all, my condolences to the extended Buckley family (including Mr. Bozell) and all who admired WFB and will miss him.
This is just another example of why we are going to win this ideological war against liberalism: Corliss obviously "misunderestimates" why Buckley was so popular, and so effective. He dismisses the arguments by dismissing the arguer, rather than answering them with facts to support his own worldview (likely because there are none.)
Corliss is obviously not "a master debater". ;-)
~~~
I admire FDR for not insisting on getting the approval of France and Germany before going to war.
--Anne Coulter
"This is just another
February 28, 2008 - 12:03 ET by Chris Norman"This is just another example of why we are going to win this ideological war against liberalism:"
Or how we can lose this ideological war despite having a superior rationale. The American people have been so dumbed down that they become bored with rational arguments. Emotionalism, with no facts, appeal to the shallow nature of the popular culture and mindset today - perfect to receive the liberal "argument"...
Chris, whatever doubts I may have had about our doom...
February 28, 2008 - 15:04 ET by R D Helm...were erased completely when the American people rose up and opposed allowing just 2% of their SS dollars being put in private accounts. After all, people would have had to become responsible for the investment decisions on that 2%. Better to let the government do it.
Our "love of freedom" is no more.
Barack Obama has no middle name. Just ask the Republican Party.
"Up From Liberalism" by WFB
February 28, 2008 - 12:04 ET by Prester JohnHe told it like it was and still is about the Left. The methods the Left uses to destroy its ideological enemies today were being used in exactly the same way back in the 50s and early 60s i.e. when you can't argue the issues attack your opponent and then destroy him, pretend nothing has happened, and then be outraged when your own positions or motivations are called into question.
Corliss is classless
February 28, 2008 - 12:07 ET by ballwana13What a contemptible weasel. Richard Corliss is not only classless but deluded into thinking he was better than William F. Buckley. If a similar liberal of weight were to pass away, do you think the media would allow a conservative to write such drivel about them without an apology (not that a conservative would do such a thing).
This is typical of liberals expecting the world to think the way they do and when others have free thought and are not bound to a government thinking for them, he and other liberals attack the foundations of conservative thinking.
Vince Lombardi?
February 28, 2008 - 12:15 ET by Shooter1002RIP Mr. Buckley.
Its to be expected that your liberal critic deride Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. I am sure that each wear the criticism of this liberal sycophant proudly.
But Vince Lombardi? Is that necessary or smart?
But Vince Lombardi? Is that
February 28, 2008 - 13:11 ET by NewsbusterbrownBut Vince Lombardi? Is that necessary or smart?
Especially when Lombardi never said what Corliss thinks he said.
In 25 years...
February 28, 2008 - 13:37 ET by Chaitealoverpeople will still be quoting William Buckley. No one will even remember there was a person called Richard Corliss.
Chai
“...Bury me on my face,” said Diogenes; and when he was asked why, he replied, “Because in a little while everything will be turned upside down.”
For all WFB
February 28, 2008 - 15:52 ET by Clear thinkerFor all WFB lovers...
This video is funny as you-know-what. Here's part of the text from it...
"At one point, Vidal, the America-hating homosexual leftist (a pervert on both counts!), called Buckley a “crypto-Nazi,” and Buckley’s response was priceless. "Now listen, you qu--r. Stop calling me a crypto Nazi, or I'll sock you in your goddamn face and you'll stay plastered."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=li73RRLEyW8
"Abstain from McCain"
"If it was such a horrible
February 28, 2008 - 15:56 ET by suzycreamcheese"If it was such a horrible show, why did so many liberals appear on it and return time and time again? Sorry, Corliss, you struck out bigtime on this one."
I agree. I used to love watching Firing Line and always chuckled when uber lib Michael Kinsley would fawn all over Buckley. It was sad, really. He was like a little puppy dog waiting for a bone of acknowledgement to drop. RIP, Mr. Buckley.
A more humane take...
February 28, 2008 - 16:47 ET by jaylatNot all Time writers are as ignorant as Corliss. Here's a very gracious obituary from the same issue:
http://www.time.com/...