EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Peanut Butter and Buckley
Two words come to mind when I think of conservative William F. Buckley, who died last week at the age of 82: peanut butter.
He loved the stuff and was a true connoisseur, often saying, "If peanut butter were as expensive as caviar, it would be served at Buckingham Palace teas."
Several tributes to Buckley have mentioned this avid predilection. He himself wrote about it in his column and, memorably, a full-blown New Yorker Magazine essay in which he extolled the virtues of Red Wing peanut butter, a grocery store house brand made upstate in Fredonia, New York.
I first arrived at my knowledge of his enthusiasm in an odd, peripheral yet firsthand sort of way. Years ago, when I was an undergraduate at Georgetown, Buckley and his producers would occasionally bring his public television talk show "Firing Line" down to Washington for a few episodes.
At the end of each program, a panel of left-leaning students would be allowed to question Buckley and his guest(s), a nod to the younger generation and other political points of view but also, presumably, an opportunity for Buckley to skewer feckless opposition with his infamous wit and vocabulary.
I was one of those callow, opinionated kids. Two other classmates and I were booked to appear on a live broadcast with investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, who had published a book based on his Pulitzer Prize-winning expose of the My Lai massacre. After that we would tape a program for the following week, this one with three United States Marines who had served in Vietnam and said they had witnessed no such atrocities.
The other students and I prepared for the two shows as if we were cramming for midterms. Adrian Fisher, the dean of Georgetown's Law Center, even arranged for us to have lunch with Telford Taylor, the Nuremberg trials prosecutor who had just written a controversial book arguing that by post-World War II standards, some American actions in Vietnam and Cambodia were as criminal as those committed by the Third Reich.
The shows were produced from the studio of Howard University's public television station. The first, the live telecast with Sy Hersh, went off without a hitch. The dialogue between him and Buckley was interesting and in the closing segment our questions were well received and thoughtfully answered.
But in between the live and taped shows one of the producers came up to my classmates and I as we waited in the green room. He admonished us for not being "radical" enough. Apparently, it turned out, we weren't sufficiently of the bomb-throwing, anarchic breed the "Firing Line" staff hoped for in their student interrogators.
Our pride hurt, we resolved that if we couldn't foam at the mouth and threaten revolution, at least we'd be tougher in our questions. When our time came to grill the three Marine officers, we asked how they could extrapolate solely from their experiences alone that no war crimes had occurred in Southeast Asia. To do so, I said, was like saying all Indians walk single file, at least the one I saw did.
The three lieutenants opened fire. My comparison was hyperbole, they yelled, out of bounds. Drop and give me twenty.
Then Buckley cleared his throat and clicked his ballpoint pen against his teeth. Silence fell as we awaited his pronouncement. "I think," he said in that languid way of his, waving vaguely in my direction, "the point survives the exaggeration."
Redemption. That's the way Buckley was. He listened to what you had to say, despite his belief that, as he once declared in the New York Times Book Review, "Who else, on so many issues has been so right so much of the time? I couldn't think of anyone." Nonetheless, if he thought you had a point, he said so.
To my mind, he was, as the feminist Andrea Dworkin noted, "elegant and brilliant and wrong." Early in his conservative career he embraced some deeply ugly notions, including McCarthyism and segregation hiding behind the guise of state's rights. But he changed, and at a time when political argument has degenerated into the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes (to quote the eminent rhetoricians of Monty Python), Buckley -- most of the time -- stood as evidence that civilized political discourse can take place without bombast or brickbats; that people can have, as he put it, "trans-ideological friendships."
Speaking of bombast, one of those Marines on the show went on to become Lt. Colonel Oliver North. I am not making this up.
As for the peanut butter, the night before the shows we had a meeting with the production team at the Mayflower Hotel. Leaving, I walked down a corridor past Buckley's room. Taped to the door was the hotel room service menu with his breakfast order. I stopped to see what he had ordered. Pretty standard: juice, coffee, eggs, bacon, whole-wheat toast. But at the bottom, he had written a note.
"Peanut butter for the toast, please. SKIPPY Peanut Butter." The word SKIPPY was underlined twice. "And not that damned Jif. I can tell the difference!"
Above all, he was a man of discerning taste.
Michael Winship, president of the Writers Guild of America, East and former writer with Bill Moyers, writes this weekly column for the Messenger Post Newspapers in upstate New York.
copyright 2008 Michael Winship
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

47 Comments so far
Show AllI spel terribul, Gorse.
Kem: Just to keep the ball in the air, it's 'grammar.' Not like 'hammer.'
Wow!! A very good grammer lesson too. If we were all professional writers, there would be maybe one blog per article.__ LOL. Mark Twain ignored perfect grammer, so does our president. ____ Of course Mark Twain was intelligent.
I believe it was Gore Vidal who Buckley wanted to smash in the teeth. Chomsky simply wiped the floor with this blathering idiot who hemmed and hawed his way into making people believe that he had a brain. He was simply appreciative of linguistic tongue play. You could see Chomsky's sheer amazement at Buckley's ignorance of history. I always liked watching Buckley to see what kind of inanity he would blubber out next, the way his eyes moved. I took it, in my youth, to be "intellectual." Now I know it for what it is: bluster.
Funny that peanut butter is often used to catch rats. Did the GOP lure him with the stuff?
THIS IS MUST READING ON THE HISTORY OF BUCKLEY WITH CIA AND ALSO ON THE ORIGINS OF YOUNG AMERICAN FOR FREEDOM
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5744
Also excellent is this thread on Young Americans for Freedom, which was partly founded by Buckley. The guy who cofounded it claims to have had a political change of heart and is a member of Education Forum named Douglass Cadddey. Historians of Watergate will recognive him as the person E. Howard Hund called at 3AM after being arrested at the Watergate Hotel. His comments on this thread are quite interesting!
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4437
Thanks for the fond reminiscence, but let's remember Buckley for what he was - a conservative elitist with no thought for the American worker. An erudite writer who gave regressive conservatism a platform from which to launch its assault on the Constitution, eventually handing us the Bush/Cheney fiasco. A bigoted man who favored segregation, male chauvinism, and the usual good ol' white boy elitism of the idle rich.
I prefer JIF.
It's true. Buckley was a fair debater who defended his conservative views intellectually and philosophicaaly ( except for the time he declared, "I'll smash you in the goddamned teeth to Noam Chomsky. Perhaps, engaging his intellectual equal caused him to lose the insouciance and reveal something of the character of a true conservative.) Anyhow, I watched "Firing Line" and Buckley was ( and is, even in repose) so far superior to Rush Limbaugh and that ilk, it's sad we've lost his irreplacable literacy and eloquence. I also like peanut butter. Did you know it was invented by a free black man, George Washington Carver?
Um, Nathaniel, that was a different William Buckley....
I remember the time my younger self turned from admiration to contempt of Buckley. I had been reading his newspaper column for several years and noted both his prolific and vast vocabulary and analysis.
Then I saw that he was to be on a New York TV talk show with James Baldwin. So I tuned in and listened to his unctious, condescending, affected, upper-class, dulcid tones. To have heard Buckley was to despise him as one of the most unamerican and conceited snobs who ever enjoyed the monopolized opportunity that mass media presents to someone to express their ideas. Yecchh!
He was 82, may he rest in peace, as Matt Rothschild of the Progressive likes to proclaim, "the good die young".
Good story. I happened to hear Buckley speak at a forum in Cambridge, MA (at Harvard) in fall of 1995. He gave his usual stump speech, going on about liberal bias in the media, etc.
I asked him a question to the effect of, if there is a liberal bias in the media, why is there so little coverage to U.S. actions abroad and support for dictators such as Suharto in Indonesia (then still in power).
To my surprise, he looked me right in the eye and said that he agreed that anti-communism of the 1950s/1960s had gone too far and that the had not been critical enough of anticommunist dictators during that time period.
That doesn't make me a fan of his, but that admission impressed me, as did his recent principled criticism of the Iraq war. I find most of Buckley's ideas repulsive, but at least he kept faith with those ideas, unlike the current breed of conservative pundits who have no principles whatsoever.
It should also be mentioned that Buckley lost his temper debating Gore Vidal, calling him a "queer," a compliment for which Vidal sued him.
Buckley's intellectual forbears arise from the arguments against the French Revolution penned by Edmund Burke in Reflexions on the Revolutions in France., who felt that the whole affair was a conspiracy put up by a "literary cabal" of Enlightenment philosophers attempting the destruction of Christianism, a proposition that is still being trotted out by all the rabid conservatives and implied by more literate conservatives like Buckley although most ably disputed long ago by Thomas Paine in The Rights of Man.
Buckley was just another educated nut, of which there are many assortments.
Hitler was a great orator as well....both are now worm food...good riddance
Kicking ass is of absolute and paramount importance to right wingers. Listen to black shirt talk radio; it is oozing with pent-up violence. Buckley really wasn't any different. From time to time he would come across as Horst Wessel. The above mentioned incident re Noam Chomsky or his desire to violently rid the world of Gore Vidal. Buckley could just have easily turned the readers of CD into peanut butter, if not Soylent Green.
Buckley was a pompous fool. To say he was superior to Limbaugh is to say nothing at all. Who is not?
"...came up to my classmates and I..." from the President of the Writer's Guild of America????
Turn in your membership card.
I guess the adage fits "you are what you eat." Need we say anything more about Buckley?
Fear not, William F. Buckley has already been reincarnated:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7d5KrBqmcM
Two take homes from his obituary (also on wikipedia):
1) He was a member of the secret Yale Skull and Bones Society;
2) He was a deep cover CIA agent in Mexico City where he served under E. Howard Hunt, then "quit the Agency" before serving for a year, allegedly to return to promote his successful book.
I would suggest that his ties with the CIA were severed to the same degree as his ties with the Skull and Bones Society. The CIA could not have hoped for a more erudite domestic ally than W. F. Buckley, to "catapult the propaganda", as G. W. Bush has said.
I was reading Wlliam Blum's essay today regarding Hillary Clinton and ilks' ignorance of the blatant lies of the current mafia gangsters in Washington leading up to American genocide and war crimes in Iraq. It chronicles the endless list (only partially) of American use of torture, terror, rape, pillage, and inhumanity of the worst variety across the world and within the U.S., year after year.
Given this record, and given the extent of violent racism, bigotry, corporate profiteering, imperial arrogance and audacity, and unlimited inhumanity couched with self-serving hypocrisy and propaganda, as exhibited by the American government, especially its R-party versions (which is not to exonerate the D-party participants in this imperial exercise, as currently represented by the shameless enablers in the Houses of Congress)- it is rather amusing that a so-called intellectual from Georgetown, finds a certain admirable human quality in WFB's love of peanut butter.
Maybe it is not so ironic, after all! Maybe a sophisticated bigot such as WFB, whose polished versions of racial and cultural hatred obviously trained more than a generation of xenophobes and heartless, corporatist robots- was truly so devoid of common humanity and decency, that one has to reach for his eating habits to find a tiny shred of human quality lurking under that super-snob facade.
The culture of hate and exclusiveness that WFB and the right-wing ideology (couched under the repulsive concept of "conservatism") fostered and made fashionable, was put into the mainstream by the emergence of the empty-headed one-liner expert, Reagan, and his "revolution," leading to endless war, arms escalation, usurpation of workers' rights, gangsterism around the world, and terrorizing weaker nations and people. This had finally led to the nightmare of Bushco that the world will be lucky to recover from, decades from now.
If one must try so desperately hard to find something "good" to say about WFB, whose ideology has led to the death and destruction of millions, with perhaps no end in sight- then peanut butter will do just fine.
If I read another pseudo-leftist fawning over this effete fascist I will puke.
Is the right going to heap such praise on Chomsky or Zinn or the more stylistically similar Gore Vidal, when they die???
Um, Nathaniel, that was a different William Buckley….
TRUE-RELATIVELY-DAT. NO WORRIES. BOTH WERE CIA!
Here is the proper thread!
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5078
Also recommend this one from Spartacus, which is related to Education Forum and has many different quotes from different publications at the bottom of the thread, so that the reader is not reliant on just one writer.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbuckleyW.htm
Much of the commentary posted here is vivid illustration of why the likes of William F. Buckley will be missed, both among his allies on the right, and those of us who were supposedly his enemies on the left. He had the quaint idea (forgotten by the likes of Libaugh and O'Reilly, but also apparently forgotten by many of the more juvenile posters on this site) that political debate is done by presenting reasoned arguments, listening to the same from your opponent, defending your reasons, and attempting to undermine his. NOT by begging the question, attempting to outshout your opponent, or ad hominem attacks.
If you wish to convince your opponent, he must first listen to you. As this and countless similar reminiscences demonstrate, Buckley would. I question how many of the posters on this page would have granted him the same respect. Buckley was wrong in many if not most of his conclusions, but to his credit, he knew why he held them, could defend them, would listen to other's reasons for disagreeing with him, and then try to explain to them why they were wrong. In today's political forum, as T.V., talk radio, and many posts here demonstrate, these qualities are exceptional.
And he would listen and disagree with charm, wit, brilliance, and good nature. He realized if someone disagrees with you in politics, it does not necessarily follow that that person is wicked, worthless, or a fool. He realized that he was not always right, and corrected himself when he so realized. He realized that to give an idea a fair hearing, you actually had to listen to it. And realized that to convince and change others, you had to treat him with respect. That is why so many of his former opponents (like Mr. Winship) feel the need to reminise fondly about the man; because they liked him, and counted him a friend, even though they did not agree with him. And I would submit this is why both Buckley and those liberals now paying him tributes would consider their enemies not to be each other, but those on both the left and right who admire their own wisdom as they go on a talk show or a website, spew a few insults, make one or two factual claims, denounce their ideological opponents as idiots or crooks who should not be listened to, and never have to worry that they will someday discover that their positions may be wrong.
After all, they can't learn they are wrong if they won't listen.
As to the many statements above that he threatend/insulted Gore Vidal and Noam Chmosky, permit me to give the actual story. It is indeed an instance where Buckley lost his temper, but is remebered so well because it was so out of character for Buckley. And as the story shows, I believe he was somewhat justified in losing his temper.
In 1968, WFB and Gore Vidal were debating on television. (I believe the subject was the 1968 riots in CHicago.) As they disputed, Vidal called Buckley a "crypto-nazi." Buckley, incensed, told Vidal, "Don't call me a nazi, you queer, or I'll punch you in the God-damned face." Certainly offensive, but I don't think it much more offensive than being called a nazi. (If you disagree, think about it- would you rather be slurred with "queer", or be called a member of an ideology that preaches genocide.)
Roughly a year later, Chomsky appeared opn Buckley's show Firing Line. As they prepared for their interview/debate, Chomsky said that he at times had troublekeeping his temper when discussing their topic, the Vietnam war, but that he would keep it tonight. Buckley, chuckling, said he appreciated that, then added that he'd better keep his temper or, (in the tone of a man quoting), "I'll punch you in the God-damned face.) (chuckles from both men and the audience.) He was making a joke about losing his temper with Vidal a year before.
May Ye and your ilk rot in your Catholic Hell WFB. This article was disgusting.
Beware the soi-disant. No connoisseur of peanut butter could conceivably prefer Skippy or Jif to a pure, sugar-free stuff like Adams.
That would be like choosing Thunderbird over a Chateau Margaux '59.
BernieLaPaz,
Thanks for your comments. I get sick to death of people forgetting that we are all people. I am opposed to Buckley and a great deal of what he stood for but I never viewed him as an enemy. There is so little tolerance from either the right or the left, I wonder if we will ever be a unified country again. It is all so dysfunctional.
"unctious, condescending, affected, upper-class, dulcid tones." Poet March 4th, 2008 1:43 pm
" THIS IS MUST READING ON THE HISTORY OF BUCKLEY WITH [the] CIA …" Nathaniel Heidenheimer March 4th, 2008 1:19 pm
"Um, Nathaniel, that was a different William Buckley…." whatheheck March 4th, 2008 1:43 pm
Dudes, Don't be duffers. Dulcet is spelled D-U-L-C-E-T. Dulcid is not spelled in any way, as it is not a word. And the only way you could really think WFB's tones were dulcet is to not really know what it means, either. Please don't display dumbness in debate with dextrous die-hards. It hurts our cause, and would be pounced on and ridiculed by William F. Buckley in a superior, scathing manner if he were still among us. We have Manichean battles ahead of us; we need to know our stuff and show the kind of wit, erudition and skewering ability of Buckley (without the reactionary lack of connection to other humans.) And don't even get me started on the logic and leaps to conclusions above. Sheesh!
Buckley may have been a cut above Limbaugh but calling him an intellectual is downright inaccurate. If he had not been born into money he would never have gotten away with passing himself off as anything of the sort.
I saw the "debate" with James Baldwin. No fight was ever so obviously fixed.
I agree with Bernie LaPaz.
Disrespect even among Democrats is so common now that it passes for simple "partisanship," which doesn't have to be a swear word.
There's some discussion of the "war" between supporters of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton here. Most of the "partisans" don't even bother to form words, much less the elegant sentences with which Mr. Buckley adorned the wrong side of almost every issue.
Was he worth 29 comments and counting??????
Poet: I love all of these comments:
unctious, condescending, affected, upper-class, dulcid tones
But please it is unctuous and dulcet
I loved the phrasing though
Peace !
i must thank that bernielapaz guy above-often times this website does read a tad like an ad hominem theme park.if the majority of us were arrested for attempting to make a point,there would not be enough evidence to convict us-as for facts,we go through 'em like ol' Agamemnon went through trojans-at least the baron of sharon had that matchless academic drawl,and fabulous facial tics which diverted your attention from what he was really saying.no,he wasn't a real intellectual,but rather a high end sophist who was really strongest when writing about the subjects he knew best-sailing,and spying.furthermore,mcarthyism,segregation and imperialism all had apologists aplenty amoungst folks who passed themselves off as lefties.buckley had his obits written by his friends who remember him at his best.we should all be so lucky.rip/wfb.
The Charlie Rose show had a tribute to WFB the day after he died, showed clips from a number of years shows with him on....it was obvious that the man no longer took comfort in what he owned or his money and was rather depressed. He seemed to value friendships and giving gifts to people in need.
I'm afraid he may have seen the error of his past ways and beliefs.
I didn't care for Buckley, but I do love peanut butter. __ Natural and smooth.__ No chemical mixes please. Just mashed peanuts
and the peanut oil.
One of my favorite recipes is to deep fry a San Francisco dog, until it flots to the top of the grease, place that on a toasted bun, with chopped onions, relish, peanut butter and Miracle Whip dressing. ___ It is really great.
It is great for veggies too. Just leave the hot dog out.
The truth is ~Spartacus~, we all originated from Mars. That's where our ancestors migrated from after they had polluted Mars with atomic waste and killed off their ocean's phytoplankton. The Mar's atmosphere was ruined. 144,000 managed to escape and they had just enough fuel for their one giant space craft to reach Earth.
This planet didn't have the necessary minerals to manufacture fuel for their space craft and they didn't realize that rare mineral was plentiful on our moon. They were marooned here, on a planet that was horribly volcanic and earthquake prone at that time.
There were huge dinasours roaming the planet and over alll it was a difficult place to re-establish a civilization. But they did manage and they built a beautiful city they named Atlantis. They multiplied and thrived until about 50 million years ago when a giant asteroid struck Earth and the result was, most life on Earth was eradicated.
The few humans still alive were forced to inter-marry and over time people we refer to as cavemen evolved. The rest of the story is modern history. They invented peanut butter however, that recipe was handed down over eaons of time to the next generations and we still have it in abundance.
Anyway, I think that history lesson is better than the artilce.
Wm Buckley can spend his eternity next to Jerry Falwell, it's punishment that suits each of them. The planet is slightly better off. Wind bag meet Hot Air, they will reek forever together, maybe not in hell, but surely not in my heaven. Ruthu and Spartacus...funny stuff. Sometimes we get a little too into ourselves and musings...what the hell, it's amusing and insightful nonetheless.
Say what you will about Buckley's political stances; but his oratory and rhetoric were poetry to my young ears. He made points, good and bad, and did so with eloquence, wit and intelligence. I frequently disagreed with his viewpoint, but I always appreciated his delivery. I would have loved to see an hour long, no holds barred debate with Mr. Chomsky. That would have been great to see.
His voice was in stark contrast to the shrill, mechanical and intellectually shallow verbal matches that we often see today.
In my opinion, the universe of political ideas and the spectrum of debate is a little less bright now that he's gone.
The bottom line is that, except a few lizard replicates, we are all human beings -- and an appreciation of peanut is evidence of (some) humanity.
I know this is off-topic, but how can the president of the Writers' Guild of America write a sentence with this horrendous grammar: "one of the producers came up to my classmates and I..."?
Just for the record, one does not come up to "my classmates and I." One comes up to "my classmates and me." The fact that a published - and respected - writer would even make this dreadful, albeit common, mistake in the first place is bad enough. But to not catch it is even worse. Note: "I" is used as the subject of a sentence, while "me" is used as the object of a sentence. Even when other people are in the group.
Using the subjects "I," "she," "he," and "we" in sentences in which the word "and" appears has become more and more prevalent. It's in the scripts of TV shows (as just one example of dozens, in one show I heard "the boat took the king and I..." to the other shore), I've heard English teachers use it in casual conversation (a friend asked if I would take a picture of "my daughter and I"!), and now those who make their living writing are allowing it to slip into their essays.
I realize the English language, like all good languages, is constantly evolving. Soon "their" will be a singular, since there is no good substitute for the masuline pronoun when referring to both genders. However, there's no reason to actually reconstruct grammar just because people can't remember that it really, really, really is OK to use "me" in the same sentence with "and."
Any "liberal" who claims a "conservative" isn't human not only doesn't understand their opponent, but doesn't really understand themselves.
Um, Nathaniel, that was a different William Buckley….
TRUE-RELATIVELY-DAT. NO WORRIES. BOTH WERE CIA!
ONCE AGAIN, BOTH WILLIAM F. BUCKLEYS WERE CIA!
Here is the proper thread!
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5078
Also recommend this one from Spartacus, which is related to Education Forum and has many different quotes from different publications at the bottom of the thread, so that the reader is not reliant on just one writer.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbuckleyW.htm
I am saddened by some of the posts on this board. We can all take something from a life well lived, and even if we don't agree with all the things that Buckley said, believed, promoted and fostered, we can at least take a lesson from his exquisite manners, and in the example that he set with the tolerance of those with whom he disagreed (I still recall him disagreeing with someone by "simply" stating: "the pedigree of that proposition is somewhat flawed"........). I did not agree with everything that Buckley stood for, but he did disagree with Bush's foreign policy adventurism; with the Iraq war; and with the prohibition on marijuana (or at least with the folly of current marijuana laws). For that I thank him. Above all, Buckley was a thinker, and we need more of those, of all political stripes. The best "escapist" writing that I have ever had the pleasure of enjoying was when I took the time to read Buckley's books "Airborne", and "Atlantic High". I urge everyone take the time to read them; if you have, then tell me that you cannot find something delightful, insightful and rewarding in what Buckley had to say, regardless of your political, economic or social standing.
Ummm... I wonder if Buckley would have liked Skippy as much if the peanuts had come from Jimmy Carter's farm...
Guess you would call that Left Wing peanut butter (ha!)
The CIA was the elite, the monied and their children for the most part --
Sure, there were E. Howard Hunts who liked to play elite - they did the dirtier work.
Buckley --- oil, CIA, Daddy, pushing Goldwater but not looking at the impossibility of defeating JFK;
not being aware of the elitist hatreds for JFK?
Come on...!
Operation Mockingbird existed and enlarged its presence with all of the "free press." Certainly that included the NY Times AND PBS -- with pretty much both now totally suffocated by the censorship, the failure to be able to report freely. In fact, it continues today, in its downward spiral --- one of its latest journalist-gate efforts being Judith Miller who pushed the war in Iraq in her reporting at the NYT/WMD and, we presume, suffered having her dream of riding in with the troops she was "embedded with" having found the WMD --- this was, of course, edited by Scooter Libby's OUTING of a CIA agent -- and presumably Bush's failure to carry out planting of WMD in Iraq.
When we talk about OIL and the elite, we have to understand that we are talking about capitalism itself in America --- it's going down.
Keeping capitalism in place has required decades of overt violence by the right.
And the CIA was one of their most effective tools.
Buckley was an authoritarian bully who got away with it because he had money and therefore position -- and was planted at PBS to make nonsense, to confuse.
What would he have, otherwise, been doing on PBS???
To William F Buckley credit he was against America's fascistic war on drugs at the time when liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans held hands together in passing some of the most vicious mandatory minimum sentences against drug offenders (in the eighties). That helped turn America into the world's number #1 jailer, but William F Buckley is supposed to be the bad guy? Yeah right.