>> again, thank you all for coming and supporting independent bookstores, so round of applause. [applause] we have a very special guest here for you today, a professor at roger williams university and is spoken in front of commerce. his writings have been published in the nation, "usa today," and the boston globe

so i think it is important that i confess my apostasy first. i happen to admire buckley tremendously in many, many ways, but i also disagree with many of his ideas, and that may come through, but i wanted to be upfront with you about that. historians debate whether history is made by individuals or by structural forces. if it city says would it be the same country that we know it to be? what other people have come

forth and fill their shoes and done what they did or would things be markedly different? for our purposes tonight to the question is, if william f. buckley jr. had not lived with conservatives in the world yesterday, or would it be different? a conservative movement, a conservative movement, would it have achieved the same success that it has received? i am going to put that question aside for the moment and try to circle back to it later. let's start with who was buckley? well, he had six different careers where he did things that would have been -- would have --

would have filled carriers for six people and made them all in color with successful. let's start with the fact that he was a syndicated columnist. he wrote for many, many years. in fact, up until he died a column call on the right. at its height it was published in 52 states. he was one of the most widely read columnists in the country. he produced, in the course of his life, 5,600 columns. if you just took his newspaper columns and published them in book form they would fill 28 volumes this size. he did this extraordinarily well. he won the best columnist of the year award in 1967, and so i suggest that if he had just been a syndicated columnist he would have been enormously successful an enormously influential. he also wrote 56 books.

now, six of them have to be collections of magazine's articles, speeches, but that leaves still 50 additional books , most on politics of but he wrote about all kinds of other things, very successful spy series. he wrote about saving their oceans -- sailing across the oceans. in addition to these books, many of which were national best sellers, many of them, he published come this magazine articles, not only in his own magazine, national review, but in magazines that pride themselves on publishing the very best literature, the new yorker and esquire and many other magazines commanded it is very well. he won an award for the best mystery in paperback one year. he won the lowell thomas travel journalism award for the best travel article one year.

if he had just done that it would have made a very successful career. he was a public speaker. he was probably the most sought after, certainly one of the most sought-after public speakers in the united states. at his height he delivered -- averaged 70 tax year. he did this in large part to raise extra revenue to help support his magazine. he was a television host. he did this from 1967 until 1999. he still holds the record of -- well, holds the record of being the show, the longest-running show with a single host a history. he did this extremely well. he won an emmy award for outstanding achievement for his television show. if he just said of the

television show for 33 years and been that successful it would have been an enormous accomplishment. and now i come to his signal accomplishment. he founded the national review magazine in 1955. he added it up until 1990. he maintained the legal control of it until 1999. and probably many of you know, national review biweekly or semi monthly, a conservative journal opinion, probably the most influential opinion journal and the united states on the left or right. and it was a vehicle for defining, redefine conservatism in the 50's, 60's, and creating a conservative relevant

in an enormously influential magazine. he was -- buckley was a man of extraordinary wit and charm. for those of you who remember haven't come up barely remember this, and vons, charisma. he did things that no one else thought of doing. let me take you back in time to 1965 when he happened to fit in among all of these other things running for mayor of new york. he ran for mayor of new york of the conservative party ticket. he did it for two reasons. one was to communicate conservative ideas to a wider audience cannot just intellectuals who read and magazines and watch highbrow shows, and he also did it to extinguish the political career of a rising liberal republican, john wasser. he believed that lindsay was a

dashing, hansen, rising star in the republican party. he was a liberal. and he had not endorsed the republican standard bearer of barry goldwater in 1964. there was a battle raging for the heart of the republican party. hands but we hope that by running under a conservative party line he would drain enough republican votes away to defeat him. let me take you back to his first press conference and reuse some excerpts from his first press conference. understand, the conservative party has persuaded buckley to be the standard bearer to run for mayor. they're introducing into the public for the first time. this was of the press conference

proceeds, portions of it. do you want to be mayor, sir? i have never considered it. back when you can imagine the conservative party officials standing they're aghast. this is their candid. what is he doing? do you think that is something at present that should be considered? buckley, not necessarily. what is important is a certain points of view should prevail. whether your i administer them is immaterial, assuming you are a good administrator. you were asking people to vote for you. if you when will you serve. buckley pauses as if considering this question for the first time if elected will serve, he says. did you think you have a chance of winning? no.

how many votes do you expect to get conservatively speaking? conservatively speaking, one. then the week later another reporter asked him, well, what would you do if you do when? he said, demand a recount. bell, the conservative party officials may have been horrified, but from the first well buckley galvanized the attention of many, many people, especially young people. it's almost an oxymoron. an honest politician. someone who felt that running for office, expressing ideas was more important than winning.

let me take it a little bit further back in time to 1951. i pick 1951 because its when buckley first became famous. at 26 to assure old recent graduate of yale. he wrote a book called god and man at yale in which he excoriated his alma maters. the book was all about the economics and religion department at yale and what various professors were teaching in various classrooms had what textbooks there were using. he would have predicted this would become a bestseller. it did. an antenna 51 he writes got a minute yale. fifty-five he thousands national review, yeah and, yeah man. let me go back in time. conservatism had been given up

as dead and buried by lots of people. the liberal candidate for president, the liberal candidate for president captured the republican nomination in the past four presidential cycles. the weight the eisenhower in 52. many people begats that await us now are described himself as a moderate republican and also as a liberal republican. and many people thought that conservatism was irrelevant. it had been bank wished. everybody was liberal. end to low well, what was conservatism than probably personify robert taft would have been the conservative standard

bearer for the nomination. it was characterized by prudence , cautioned. before world war two, isolationism and skepticism about the use of military force. and buckley, i suggest to you, tasted, transformed. no, buckley was not a political philosopher. his ideas were not want his own. many of them were inherited from his father, who was very influential, borrowed from other thinkers. but buckley was a brilliant polemicist, also an extremely gifted leader. and as gifted leaders know, building a movement is not about personal bowater glory, it is

about creating an army. you could think of -- you can think of buckley, i think, as the conductor of an orchestra. he did not read the music. he did not play the instrument, but he decided what would be played, who was going to play it , who to invite into the art is trenton not invited, he decided to expel from the orchestra. he made all of these strategic decisions and was extremely good at it. now, what did he create? el tell you what he created, but it will thus apprise you because it is will we have come to associate with conservatism. it is not a surprise we have become so used it to pretend to think conservatism was always this way, but conservatives and today and at buckley created this way, really a 3-legged stools sitting on libertarian as an kamala we today call the of conservatism, and religious or

social conservatives and. we continue as a coalition of these three different philosophies with three different groups if you will. but we happened to embrace all pre within his breast. he may not have been the purest of the pure in any one of the three because there are many inconsistencies and incompatibilities among these schools of thought, but he was largely of three of these things by libertarianism, i mean, the philosophy that says that the right to live your life, we all have a right to live lives as we choose as long as we do not infringe on the equal rights of others. and this idea of not being coerced, but being coerced particularly by government, but not the anybody, being free him.

many libertarians to a very purist to absolutist blaze a fair philosophy. there should be little or no government regulations. in fact, very little government. and the musicians who buckley, using this metaphorically, the editor that buckley recruited for national review who was kind of the leader of the libertarian philosophy within the national review. he actually believed, as many libertarians do, that government just has to legitimate functions to adjust to a copper texas against violent assaults, whether an invasion from abroad were criminals couldn't domestically and to adjudicate

the court system and all conflicts so that the economy could keep coming along. and nothing else. government should be very small and very weak. neoconservatism, that turn did not exist back in 1955. biden he said a knew conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality. what he meant was, look, the world is a dangerous place. it is a hard place. there are bad people. there are bad countries. you cannot be naive to. you cannot call. domestically you cannot call people.

you cannot, criminals. you cannot call the poor. they have a a tough love. make them stand on their feet. and the musicians the buckley invited international review who was the proto kneele conservative. many calls in the first year of conservative. the turn didn't exist then, a guy named james burns was the executive for national policy. american strategic doctrine articulated by all presidents, democratic and republican the laws -- containment, contemn of philosophy, contain communism. he said that is too timid and abdicated to roll back communism through clandestine to operations and some version and stimulating revolutions within

the communist bloc and more. we have to not shirk from confronting them militarily. they all backed off. they all backed off. and then the third stool is religious conservatism, social conservatism. by that i really mean finding religion central toward political views, not merely as a source of inspiration, but even guidons or policy. now, let me read you two sentences that buckley wrote in the god and main indio when he was 46. 1951. he said i myself believe the duel between christianity and did deism is the most important in the world. i further believe that the

struggle between individualism and collectivism is the same struggle. we produced it on another level. but he is saying here is, there is this struggle, this cosmic struggle between good and evil, christianity and it isn't whether it's on the international stage between the west and communism, socialist systems, collectivist systems or whether it is even domestically between the individualist viewpoint and the collectivist viewpoint, socialist you pointed that in itself is tied up with the struggle between good and evil. could cover christianity in the good is on the side of a

particular political philosophy. now, it is a complicated story as to how buckley got these particular views together and how he got them to triumph. the book goes through a series of things as he did. i think that i believe that he was not a conscious, strategic thinker. he was intuitive. but brilliant. and i just have a few minutes left and want to suggest one of the competing philosophies that he prevail over because back in the fifties there were other

people saying conservatism would have gone in other directions. it was not just buckley in national review saying this is the path to follow. there was competition, and one of the most interesting alternative approaches was being offered by a group and called or at least for particular individuals who were then collectively called the new conservatives, and there were birkie ends, followers of the philosophy of edmund burke, the great 18th-century statesman who argued that we should honor traditions and institutions and we should honor them because they have developed for particular evolutionary reasons, almost an hours to view of how societies developed. we have institutions. we have traditions. very important to our society, and have come to be aware they are because then come to work. we don't always understand

exactly what they do and how they do it and other work, but wisdom is the product of experience, and wisdom has been impressed into these institutions. now, frequently misunderstood as someone who clung to the status quo. not so. burke was a reformer and argued that paradoxically preservation required change i could go on and talk a lot more brienz our communities. they disagree about liberty. as i have already alluded to, libertarians believe that

liberty is about being free from coercion. birkie is believe that, but they also believe that meaningful liberty also requires certain number charities that you cannot particularly pursue your dream and after liberty and freedom to presume -- pursue your dream the less you have certain minimum opportunities. think of education, basic education, nutrition, other things. libertarians believe in small and weak government. birkie is believed that a strong government is necessary to preserve border -- order and liberty. the check on consolidated power is structural. it is separation of powers, federalism, other things, not small, weak government which party is considered to be dangerous. now, there were, as i mentioned,

four major -- individually, will thinkers. peter barrett who was a historian at the mount holyoke and wrote a book called conservatism revisited in 1949. a sociologist at berkeley named bill robert news to erode a book called the quest for community in 1953 titled stands pretty much further what he believed that human beings find their meaning in seeking community. there was a political scientist at cornell in decline russ knew who wrote a book called considered as an american in 1955. these were, your kid read any of these books today and find them evocative, compelling. great writers, great thinkers. in my opinion, particularly

roster and it is that. the most important was a fellow named russell kirk. end russell kirk was, in many ways, like buckley, many ways not like buckley, but at the very early age of 35 years old, assistant professor of what is now michigan state committee wrote a book called of the conservative mind through burke elliott that became a sensation. it was really a doctoral thesis and, again it was unlikely the such a book would become a sensation, but it caught the attention of certain editors at time magazine, and they ballyhooed very high in a special for the july edition of the magazine in 1953, and the book took off. and -- and kirk argued that bird is the true school of conservative thought. burt argued that libertarians

were realistic and what counted was what he called the permanent things, religion, tradition, a community park literature. and he argued that -- one of his phrases was, you know, everything is not about getting another piece of pie and another pat of butter. society in zero we are about is about more important things than just economic growth. and he was very opposed to libertarians, and he was attacked by buckley and other libertarians quite passionately, quite personally. and then buckley realized, found the magazine, and this fellow is it maybe a potential major

competitor. and so the decided to recruit him for the magazine. russell kirk was a socially awkward fellow. when conservatives and in america, not conservatism in america, a conservative mind, such a big hit he did maybe a rasping, and he quit his day job. his tradition and decided he would be an independent public intellectual and found that tough going. he was scraping by, maybe less than scraping by. buckley made a pilgrimage up to mike costa michigan and met with kirk and said to kirk i would like you to join the national review and charm tim. buckley being a dashing, and some charming guy. a short, socially awkward.

shows buckley his library, a converted barn. this is a wonderful library. this is the great tavern. and for nasa review. in the sizzle of like you to write a column on educational policy. educational policy was a subject dear to russell kirk chart, important subjects. but the battle for the future of this terrorism was not to be decided over educational party -- policy. there his name was. he picks up the phone and calls buckley and he is out raised. i will not the jeep was libertarians. take me off the masthead.

nevertheless he agrees to read the column. he does. he raised the call from the academy, rotifer 25 years. for 25 years he muted his criticism of libertarianism. after he quit national review in 1980 the following year he resumed his slashing critique of libertarianism and for other reasons : roster and peter herrick left the field of battle as well. they fell into criticizing each other, never cohered, they decided that, if you can't take the heat it out of the kitchen, as they would slow invested by

conservatives, he went on to retreat. a wonderful surprise for poetry. plan rouser repeal that to being an academic. and robert nisbet he did continue to write for many years also took a very long hiatus to london to university ministration. now, here's the irony of this. there were communitarians who never acted together, never formed a community buckley was an individualist who formed a community and that community became a very vibrant community. not just a community of thinkers and writers, but readers who looked toward to getting this

magazine and felt part of something, part of something new and something dynamic. they looked up to buckley. they looked up to the people that buckley promoted and the people in the magazine and it is my belief that had there been no william f. buckley jr. conservatism would not be the way we think of it today. i cannot tell you what it would be. i am not -- and nobody can do alternative history, how would hurt history turn out differently, but i do believe that the conservatives and became what we consider it to be because but we took it that way, and he was a person many people, particularly young people admired and wanted to follow. thank you. [applause] >> questions?

well, several things. here is one. it is my sense that we are entering a new era of ideological redefinition. this may go on for some time, but partly because of their successes liberalism and conservatism are both kind of run out of gas to a certain extent. they're under stress for other reasons. a lot of searching going on, searching, and it tends to redefinition. the tea party is in the occupy movement by just some symptoms of this, and because that is my sense i wanted to take a look at the last time one of these great ideologies linked to a process of redefinition. >> do you explore in your book what forces shape the mentality of this man?

>> yes. i do. at great length. i believe that it was his father . strangely enough i think it was his father's experiences in mexico during the mexican revolution where his father went off to make his fortune in the oil business. his father developed a particular world view, a particular political philosophy, came home and transmitted that the buckley and his eight siblings. >> a quick thing for keeping him in power after world war two, did he serve in world war two or was he in yale writing about god and yell? >> buckley did serve in the army. he did serve in the army, but not overseas. >> said he didn't see people blown up in more? >> he did not personally see people blown up in war.

>> i want to complement to as a self identify liberal. a very fair job and william f. buckley. i want to ask you about the distinction you draw between perkiness and libertarianism. i, as someone that i would hardly say is on the right to will see this mainly as an objection to powerful government and libertarian, something that is very deeply suspicious of government going beyond whatever we debate to be there a legitimate role, so i don't see a much to a battle between the rich arianism in that sense and more traditional conservatism. >> i hear you, but i think that most libertarian thinkers would

i agree with what i've read from frank mayer. government has very small and all their responsibilities and italy that's essential to preserve freedom there could a few responses about this in the book and the kid of destitute and not saying they're writing you're wrong, but will the potential philosophy is. lots of libertarians still away. probably ron paul being among them. yes? >> again, don't you think the libertarians are mostly opposed to the government to act as unnecessarily a birkie an idea. the government is to be power except to the sensitive sources

come even the things he talked about, the rule of law and protection of private property and individual safety. i mean, we are specifically disagreeing? >> disagree on and many, many things, what the function of government as and even on taxes. so this idea that taxes are bad and we should do everything to lower taxes, i think, is a bit of a libertarian view. it has to do is shrinking government and shrinking government down to size. thank you. >> could you speak to the -- today's situation and the tea party? is this the next movement of the conservative movement based upon your observations? >> i don't know. it is a lot easier to look in the riviera than out the windshield.

i think that actually, nobody can look with confidence out the windshield, but i think we do learn an awful lot by studying history, and it may not tell us exactly where we are going, but it does tell us what they saw the possibilities are. i have no idea what the future is for the party's or whether that will be the trajectory that continues. i don't know. >> there seems to be a repeat now. the differences between reality and ideology and, even though a lot of the seniors and others in is in hearsay, well, we -- about medicare. i mean, is that what they're saying, we have to cut these things? but the whole idea is, how come people will suffer for ideology

and vote for somebody who really may undermine their survival? there are a lot of people now in this country who are urging. people who are middle-class. many people are unemployed. yet rather than voting the reality of where survival or their ability to continue functioning on a level that they had, they voted idea was see that seven times that for themselves. >> well, i believe there -- i believe there are two types of people here. there are those who believe that there are two types of people and those who don't. so in much the same vein i suggest there are two types of people, people who admit they have an ideology, and people who have an ideology but don't have made it a are not aware of it. we all do have an ideology. it is a world view and mood of the will to kind of camino, walk

around politically and have ideas without it. no, the issue is when confronted with particular facts, will fax it trump predispositions? and that is a separate question. william f. buckley would have said that for him they did. the birkie as would have absolutely said that for them it does because they would have said we are about learning from experience and studying facts and making a pragmatic decision. certainly robert taft did do that. he did have inclination's, but when he sat down and study dated he would go against his inclinations when the data let in the way. that is the real question,

whether we are aware of its and can consider, be open to, and consider it inconvenient facts and reconsider our predispositions. >> the elephant in the room religion and politics to follow up on that, and ideology, is and the elephant and their religion and the libertarians that want less government just one rule of law, but yet passing a law that restricts other people's rights, women's rights, other things, in all of this is serious to me religion and all the politics may also speak to this woman's question why they may vote against their economic self-interest. >> well, i think religion is an elephant in the room. there may be other elements, of hippopotamuses in the room as

well. i will say this, but i think for william f. buckley jr. his convulses and was that nothing was more influential to him than that in that that affected. >> a white male. a lot of these questions you would never be affected by a reality. >> we have an election year coming up. >> rear-ended now. >> who is the candidate you're pushing for? >> and now pushing for a candid and in my book. >> when i was growing up, my first awareness, alice thought of kind of a contrarian who delighted in taking no matter what the topic. and then sort of intellectually bullying people.

that is an excellent and the board in question. so buckley was a very sharp debater, and he gave no quarter. and he could lesser rate an opponent pretty effectively. on the other hand he counted among his closest friends ardent liberals, john kenneth kamala murray contend, alann steen, people whose ideas were dear friends of this. no, he gave no quarter in debate

the law but he was not mean-spirited. he did know where the line was between being very tough and very passionate on an issue and being mean, personally mean. many people who profess to admire him, even emulate him, rush limbaugh, for example, says the other than his own father william f. buckley jr. was the greatest influence in his life. i wish that there would learn from him about that line. anything else?

>> we are ultimately social. we seek companionship. the worst thing we can do to each other is isolate or ostracize. so the third industrial revolution is interesting