William F. Buckley, Jr. is not defending Democratic attitudes or behavior. He isn't even suggesting that the war against the practictioners of terrorism is lost or should not be fought. He is simply observing that Bush and his team are limping along unimpressively and that their single most important foreign policy initiative has proven to be a poisonous nut which might have been better left uncracked.
Harry Truman, it is popularly known, earned the moniker: “give ‘em hell Harry.”
When asked about it, Truman responded approximately thus: “I don’t give ‘em hell. I just tell the truth and they think it’s hell.”
Well, William F. Buckley, Jr., the most important conservative in contemporary American history after Ronald Reagan, has been telling the truth lately and Rush Limbaugh is mistaking his words for hell.
Let me summarize as best I can. Buckley was interviewed recently by CBS News about Bush’s performance in office and made the following points.
- President Bush’s policy in Iraq is failing. The country is not faring well despite occasional forward progress. Civil war is still a distinct possibility. Moreover, our rationale for going to war has been undercut on key fronts and Bush has failed to galvanize public support as the operation drags on.
- Bush has failed to govern as a conservative both with respect to foreign and domestic policy. He has over-promised on both fronts, thus abandoning fiduciary responsibilities normally embraced by conservatives.
- Were Bush prime minister rather than president, he might well have been turned out of office given his foreign and domestic failures.
- In any case, he will have no legacy to speak of because no Republican is likely – given the record across the board – to embrace that legacy, particularly since Bush’s policies are not driven by a consistently demonstrated conservative philosophy.
Rush Limbaugh, earlier this week, was befuddled by Buckley's comments and what he perceives to be the lack of vision concerning the global conflict in which we are engaged. As always, Limbaugh was deferential to a point where Buckley is concerned — but to him this is the new Cold War, and the same kind of energy and effort must be exerted if we are to triumph. Why doesn't Buckley see this, Limbaugh asks.
Now I happen to be one – and so is Buckley – who has come to Bush’s defense numerous times. The left and the Democratic Party mainstream have been irresponsible in their criticism of the president, to the point that they have discredited themselves as a governing alternative. I have documented their distortions many times, including in a lengthy piece that ran on Frontpagemag.com under the headline “Bush bashing.”
But facts are stubborn things, and facts cannot be wished away no matter how convenient it might be to vaporize them. Iraq has not gone well. Maybe this is due to mismanagement, or maybe it is due to the nature of the war in which we are involved. But to say that the war has gone badly is not the equivalent of saying 1) there were not reasonable reasons for going to war; 2) the nation should not defend itself; 3) we are the bad guys and our enemies have been morally vindicated; or 4) the operation might not yet succeed, which result we pray for daily for the sake of our troops and thousands of innocent Iraqis who are suffering so horribly.
Buckley has simply said on several occasions that given what we now know, he would not have supported the war. Nor would I have supported it, had I known that 1) no weapons of mass destruction would be uncovered; 2) close to 3,000 American troops would die; 3) stabilizing the country would prove nearly impossible; and 4) hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would be murdered or killed by thugs who have mobilized under our noses.
In retrospect, I and the Bush administration might rightly be criticized for having been naïve about what would transpire in Iraq, and for letting our hopes for a free and democratic region cloud our judgment about that war-torn country’s horrific political culture. Even so, it is hardly unreasonable to suggest that President Lincoln, had he known what was going to transpire, might have avoided Ford theater on the fateful evening.
Here are the hard realities. The ability of the United States coalition to deliver security and stability to the Iraqi people has been thrown into serious doubt. In place of Saddam’s repression and murder the Iraqi people have gotten chaos and murder brought to them almost daily by the enemies of the American coalition (American troops guilty of murder and/or rape should be imprisoned or executed depending on the circumstances, but these are isolated incidents as best we know).
While it is certainly true that it is our enemies who are causing the mayhem, it is precisely America’s inability to manage that mayhem that has called into question the success of the military operation. How else is success measured in war if not the ability to quell the violence of the enemy? Let us not forget, too, that it was Bush and his chosen leadership who argued throughout that there were plenty of troops to do the job in Iraq.
In any case, Buckley is not defending Democratic attitudes or behavior. He isn't even suggesting that the war against the practictioners of terrorism is lost or should not be fought. He is simply observing that Bush and his team are limping along unimpressively and that their single most important foreign policy initiative – the war in Iraq – has proven to be a poisonous nut which might have been better left uncracked all things considered. If these realities cause Limbaugh discomfort, I suspect it is only because he has been a mostly uncritical cheerleader of the war effort
There is a serious point here that people like Buckley and Buchanan are trying to make to those conservatives who are apt to think of American power and resources as unlimited. As it turns out, the George W. Bush of the 2000 campaign was more on target than the George W. Bush of the 2004 inaugural. Nation building, 9/11 notwithstanding, is a near impossible task. The chances for success are greatly complicated in a place like the Middle East, where the colonial legacy (of which Israel is considered a part) is deeply resented. Moreover, military action – to be ultimately effective – requires a tenable political and diplomatic endgame. Bush finally seems to get this, which probably explains his more tempered management of North Korea and Iran.
Limbaugh asks fairly this question: even if all of this is true, what would Buckley or other critics of Bush now offer as a policy alternative? Or to put it another way, if for the foreseeable future Iraq cannot self-govern, how long do we remain and to what end?
It is my own view that the United States has no choice but to adopt a drastic change in its tactics and strategies – including downsizing our presence in a significant way. Are there Arab neighbors who might provide military support to Iraq’s freely elected government, say Egypt? How would that be received in Iraq? Could the Arab league play a role given the regional threat from Iran that is increasingly apparent? Might the United States hold a summit of Arab and Islamic states to confront the challenges openly and directly?
Strategically, might some of the resources being expended in Iraq be better leveraged in terms of acheiving our overall strategic goals? Is there a way to keep Iraq in the freedom camp without the deployment of hundreds of thousands of foreign troops who seem to stimulate the appetite for anti-American and anti-Iraq terrorism?
Tough questions all, but the sorts of questions professional diplomats and policymakers are paid to entertain and explore. As Einstein once said: the definition of madness is to do the same thing over and over and expect a different result.
shadroui@yahoo.com
Read more articles by George Shadroui
If Bush would have been more true to fiscal and social conservatism he could have avoided much of the criticism he receives today. He is the biggest spender, military spending aside, EVER in U.S. History. He prefers concilliation. He does not have a coherent domestic vision. He's become the 101st U.S. Senator. He thinks swimming in liberal ponds will endear him to the left. They smell blood instead. Iraq should have been pummeled simply because it violated The Gulf War Treaty. No other argument was necessary. The left are gutless eunochs with "queer" eyes. All their arguments are to further the bloodlust for power. The GOP better go back to their roots. Everyone knows that 2004 was more about Kerry being a gutless, nutcase, Herman Munster clone than a mandate on Curious George. Ronald Reagan could have run against Bush and beaten him by Mondale-sque (49-1) proportions. Bush is a honest, but inarticulate delegator with no vision. He beats, however, the commie-sodomites everytime. It's more like the Dimwit and The Deep Blue Sea.
Comment by Joseph | July 27, 2006
George W. Bush and Karl Rove have made conservatism disreputable as a governing creed. The concept of small government is in tatters. Only fools believe that limited government is part of the governing Republican philosophy. The surrender at our borders and the transformation of the United States into a Third World nation is a betrayal of conservative principles of the first order. Bush's Iraq war is a tragic farce, a foolish extension of his utopian endeavor to spread democracy worldwide to peoples whose cultures are highly resistant to democratic values. Yet Bush and the party he leads continue down a disasterous path parroting the words "War on Terror" as if such an open-ended concept can ever be defeated. They may as well declare war on fast food, flies, bad television and simple stupidity. America's budget and trade deficits point to a future national financial ruin.
The Age of Bush has been a catastrophic failure for conservatives. After eight years of power, how can conservatives, most of whom still support Bush, be trusted with the reins of government any time in the near future. In obedience to Bush, we conservatives have disregarded fiscal prudence. In obedience to Bush, we conservatives have poured hundreds of billions down a losing proposition to bring democracy to a part of the world which is important only in the oil that lies beneath its sands. In obedience to Bush, we conservatives have allowed Bush and his fellow Republican plutocrats to undermine the historic American nation with a corrosive large-scale Third World immigration that promises to destroy America from within in the manner of the barbarian invasions of the Western Roman Empire.
William F. Buckley and Patrick J. Buchanan are only pointing out the obvious. Sadly, too many conservatives are too pig-headed and saddled with the analytical abilities of football cheereleaders and drunken fans to comprehend that Bush has led conservatism to the end of the road and to the precipice of doom.
Comment by Derek Leaberry | July 27, 2006
There are actually 4 true words that "San Francisco Dan" opens his post with! Wow! We're up to 4! Unfortunately, as is always the case, your Ipso Facto (Latin, San Fran. You know like the Latin used in Liturgies. Oh, that's right! God is like the heterosexuality of Hillary, make believe!) is like your support for "gay marriage" (sic); It's not very fertile. Mr. Leaberry. I admire Bush's resolve and heart visa-vis "The War on Terror." Every other point you make I second. When the Soviets threatened to invade Poland, at the height of JP II's leadership and support of Solidarity and Lech Walesa, Ronald Reagan told The Kremlin it was on, full-bore, as Kennedy did with Kruschev in Cuba, if they did as much. Freedom won. If it would have been a nuke instead of airplanes would you see it as the most pressing of national issues then? We can argue methods, strategem, and the like but we're not playing an arcade game. Western Civilization hangs in the balance. Even Liberals (Kerry and the RodHAM say as much (though we know they don't have the will). The Liberals win when we eat our own.
Comment by Joseph | July 27, 2006
Bush's foreign policy in Iraq is nothing but neo-Jacabean liberal interventionism. There is nothing conservative about it.
As Russell Kirk said, the authentic conservative position is to follow Aristotle and realize that different forms of government are better suited for different cultures.
The Wilsonian conversion of the Middle East is historically Leftist, naive, and undesirable.
Comment by John | July 27, 2006
Following and supporting leaders who have betrayed us for the sake of keeping those who are diametrically opposed to our views from office is contrary to the conservative principle of the free-thinking individual. I believe it to be worse to follow a leader who says he is conservative, and proves not to be, than to tolerate a leader who is at least honest enough to say he is not conservative.
The first two points mentioned for not supporting the war at this time, I believe, are erroneous, thought the last two points I totally agree with. Weapons, or the components of weapons of mass destruction, have been uncovered in Iraq. And although each life lost is painful to our nation, the casualties pale in comparison to other wars, and are more in line with the casualties on the streets of some of the nations largest cities. However, what has become apparent is that bringing democracy to nations whose cultures are inherently opposed has proven to be a pipe dream of the west. Those casualties are definitely harder to swallow as a result.
President Bush ran on a conservative platform. Domestically, he has done nothing but back-stabbed his base from the beginning. Wars are fought for purposes of politics now, not to win, and the Iraq War is no exception. What is ironic to me is how Democrats and liberals despise Bush so much, and yet he is their republican dream-come-true.
Limbaugh has become a republican hack. I have quit listening to him, since the Dubai ports issue. I came to realize that he had become a one-man cheering squad for Bush.
It is truly unfortunate that no true conservative leadership that exists today has come to the forefront of the republican party. This party has blown their chance to bring America back to its roots of freedom.
Comment by Max Atlas | July 27, 2006
Limbaugh is just an idiot, and Buckley is almost as dumb. (Buckley has purged every talented and learned writer from the NR and replaced them with mindless thugs like Goldberg.) I guess if you only have half a brain, you will respect Limbaugh or Buckley. If you think that Buckley is smart, you should read Russel Kirk's comments, who thought Buckley was a superficial, shallow simpleton.
However, there really are smart conservatives out there, like Lou Dobbs, Thomas Fleming, Chilton Williamson, Clyde Wilson, Roger Scruton, etc.
It is shame that people waste their time with knaves like Limbaugh or Buckley.
Comment by David | July 27, 2006
READ: The Wilsonian conversion of the Middle East TO DEMOCRACY is historically Leftist, naive, and undesirable.
Comment by John | July 27, 2006
With regards to democracy, I ask anyone naive enough to respect democracy to listen in on CSPAN from 7 AM to 8 AM in the morning for a while and listen to the ignorant nitwits and irrational lunatic supermajority who call in to that program and expound on the issues of the day. CPAN's callers will disabuse you of the intelligence and wisdom of the average voter. George Washington's republic of limited suffrage was probably the best government in world history.
Comment by Derek Leaberry | July 27, 2006
david, plese provide the russell kirk reference on Buckley. I am curious.
Buckley is not a scholar, but he has done more for conservatives and conservatism than any person alive. Just my opinion, but I think you are wrong where he is concerned. He is still the most articulate conservative around even at the age of 80 — just not as dogmatic as some would like.
Comment by shadroui | July 27, 2006
Here's a great article - written by a conservative professor - showing how superficial Buckley is:
http://www.vdare.com/gottfried/050224_sam.htm
Comment by Alice | July 28, 2006
The question why Buckley has purged almost purged every talented writer from the NR (and replaced them with dolts) would be an interesting essay. Someone should write it.
In the history of the NR there have been only three editors-at-large: Buckley, O'Sullivan, and Goldberg. The fact that Buckley would allow a dolt like Goldberg to be an editor-at-large only demonstrates further the decline: how the NR has become a watered-down neocon rag.
For those of you not familiar with Goldberg's inept skills, here are but two recent examples of Goldberg's ignorance:
Goldberg has no clue about Montenegrin:
http://larison.org/archives/001094.php
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/cgi-bin/rockfordfiles.cgi/Sweet%20Neocon/The_Invincible_Igno.writeback
Goldberg on 'nationalism' & 'patriotism':
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/cgi-bin/rockfordfiles.cgi/Sweet%20Neocon/The_Invincible_Igno_2.writeback
Comment by Cato | July 28, 2006
Alice, thanks for sharing. But what is the point of this piece:
1. That Buckley embraced segregation (which was wrong), but then supported desegration which was also wrong? Or are you suggesting that segregation was correct? I am confused. Buckley's objections to Brown had more to do with his concerns about imposing on the nation a social contruct it was not yet ready to endurse or confront. That is a traditionally conservative notion, and one that even liberal scholars such as Bickel and Jeffrey Rosen have discussed. You inflame situations when you move to precipitously. But Buckley has simply reconciled himself to the fact that the injustices done to African Americans needed to be corrected and that all in all the civil rights movement did much good for the nation.
2. His alignment with neoconservatives is a fair observation. As a traditional conservative, I don't disggree that NR has become more corporate in its approach and less eclectic. See my review of Jeffrey Hart's history on this site. On the other hand, I think Buckley has shown more loyalty to old friends than many of them have shown to him. Joe Sobran, whom I met and had dinner with once, echoed some of the same comments. And Sam Francis was a good friend of Joe's. But Joe and Sam, right or wrong, were out of step with at least some aspects of the conservative movement under Reagan. No crime in that, but I don't think Buckley has strayed as far as Gottfried suggests. Note the comments he made in the article above.
3. Yes, Buckley was a social butterfly, and perhaps even cultivated this aspect more than some of us agraian and traditional conservatives might like. He is an urbane man who enjoys interaction — to quote Ali, he — intellectually speaking — floated like a butterfly, but stung like a bee. But that very nature is also what neabled him to bring conservatism into the mainstream, which helped propel Reagan to the presidency, which helped bring communism to an abrupt end.
4. I think some of the old line guys resented Buckely simply because he was having too much fun being the gadfly many of them simply could not be……but hey, just one guy's point of view.
Comment by shadroui | July 28, 2006
“Derek Leaberry” above writes, “I ask anyone naive enough to respect democracy to listen in on CSPAN from 7 AM to 8 AM in the morning for a while and listen to the ignorant nitwits and irrational lunatic supermajority who call in to that program and expound on the issues of the day. CPAN’s callers will disabuse you of the intelligence and wisdom of the average voter.”
I do listen to CSPAN and am appalled by the apparent ignorance of the average caller. However, there is a difference between individuals and groups when it comes to making decisions. Seems there is a synergistic effect in group decisions. Besides, it was Buckley who once famously said, "I'd rather be governed by the first 200 names in the Boston phone book than the entire Harvard faculty."
Comment by G of Sedona | July 29, 2006