William F. Buckley vs. Ayn Rand: Ayn Rand's Revenge
Joseph McHugh
June 08, 2009
I normally do not read or comment on gossipy biographies of famous people, especially written by their family members who may be a bit too bitter to be objective. But the just published memoir by William F. Buckley Jr.´s son Christopher about his parents´ deaths piqued my interest.
First a little background. Stories are myriad today about the renewed popularity of the novel "Atlas Shrugged" by novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand. With capitalism widely being declared dead or defunct it may seem strange to some people that masses of Americans are turning to this work of literature which celebrates laissez-faire capitalism, among other, more fundamental, themes.
Stranger still it is that Americans are flocking to this book when one considers that Rand (who died in 1982) was declared intellectually dead some fifty years ago by an influential public figure, one William F. Buckley Jr. Buckley was always loud in his declaration, but he seemed to be unsure of his conclusion. He felt the need to declare her death repeatedly over the years, as though trying to convince himself.
Buckley "patron saint of the conservatives" (in biographer John Judis´ words) was famous for his graciousness and class, at least publicly, and could often be seen in the company of such liberal luminaries as John Kenneth Galbraith, and even ostensible arch-nemesis George McGovern.
But when it came to Rand he produced writing filled with graceless personal attacks. He seemed obsessed with her alleged personal shortcomings. Rand it seems drove the poor man batty.
Buckley´s antipathy towards Rand first manifested itself publicly in the pages of his magazine, National Review, when "Atlas Shrugged" was published in 1957. He had Whittaker Chambers pen a bizarre review which mischaracterized her views. (Robert Tracinski has written a great dissection of this "review" see "A Half-Century-Old Attack on Ayn Rand exposes the Dark side of Conservatism.") Chamber´s review missed its target, but at least it contained philosophical arguments.
But Buckley´s own attacks on Rand were emotional and personal; he barely addressed the substance of her arguments, preferring instead to sneer at her personally along with his liberal friends. Apparently such pseudo-intellectuals like Galbraith (who never made an honest economic prediction in his life) were better people than her.
But while Buckley would ridicule Rand on a personal basis for alleged personal shortcomings, his son´s book reveals a portrait of Buckley not so flattering.
He remained married to a woman who was a pathological liar and who could be viciously rude even to houseguests. But maybe we can´t blame Buckley so much for this. His son reports that Mrs. Buckley wasn´t even speaking to her husband a third of their time together. So much for Catholic family values.
Buckley himself is exposed as a self-absorbed ass, abandoning his son at his college graduation, walking out early and not returning because he was "bored." According to his son, Buckley routinely relieved himself in public outside car doors while the cars were moving. The younger Buckley´s portrait is of a father willing to take liberties with the truth, including in biographies. He´s even revealed as a petty thief.
The point about Buckley is not that he was wrong about Rand because of his personal disorders; the point is that we can now see a lot of Buckley´s antipathy towards Rand as stemming from these insecurities and character flaws. Yes, he abhorred her atheism, but there were atheists that he was a lot kinder to during his life.
Rand´s life and character stand in sharp contrast to Buckley´s and he probably knew it. Rand would never have put up with such blatant dishonesty as Buckley´s wife engaged in. Nor would Buckley´s irrational behavior towards his son go unnoticed. They met at least once. Rand had little time for this small man. He apparently was frightened of her.
Philosopher Harry Binswanger, a close associate of Rand´s, had this to say publicly after Buckley´s death: "… Ayn Rand told me that in the years following her public condemnations of Buckley, he sent her more than one letter ´crawling on his knees´ (her words) trying to get her approval and/or a rapprochement. Needless to say, he failed in this attempt."
Again, it is not my habit to comment on the personal lives of celebrities. Moreover, it is not an argument against Buckley´s positions that he was so obviously out of it. But Buckley made a career out of trashing Rand personally, not intellectually, and one cannot help but feel justice at his public bubble being burst.
And unfortunately, Buckley´s insecure rants against Rand retarded the intellectual progress of the right for decades.
The important point here involves Buckley, but it involves a lot more. The issue with Buckley is that he truly had nothing to contribute intellectually. And when faced with a true intellectual like Rand, all he could do was guttersnipe. Yet the wider point pertains to conservatism today.
Until it begins to intellectually justify itself in a logical way, conservatism will remain lost, and statism will continue its march. Rand provided the intellectual justification for capitalism and liberty and she did so by reference to the fundamental metaphysical facts of reality and human existence. She did not appeal to tradition or the supernatural. She appealed to the rational. And the public has been responding to her ever since.
Buckley and his cohorts brag about their electoral successes-"we elected Reagan" they chime. But what permanent changes have been made? The procession of the welfare state goes on. And who can stop it, people who say God went "poof" and then there were rights?
Rand made the case against the welfare state root and branch. She was the first to make a secular case against Communism and Socialism, and the first to make a fully secular defense of American values. The fact that her ideas were shut out by Buckley hurt the entire cause of Americanism.
These days people are flocking to read "Atlas Shrugged." They are not burning a hole in their wallets to buy "God and Man at Yale."
And that´s a good thing.
First a little background. Stories are myriad today about the renewed popularity of the novel "Atlas Shrugged" by novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand. With capitalism widely being declared dead or defunct it may seem strange to some people that masses of Americans are turning to this work of literature which celebrates laissez-faire capitalism, among other, more fundamental, themes.
Stranger still it is that Americans are flocking to this book when one considers that Rand (who died in 1982) was declared intellectually dead some fifty years ago by an influential public figure, one William F. Buckley Jr. Buckley was always loud in his declaration, but he seemed to be unsure of his conclusion. He felt the need to declare her death repeatedly over the years, as though trying to convince himself.
Buckley "patron saint of the conservatives" (in biographer John Judis´ words) was famous for his graciousness and class, at least publicly, and could often be seen in the company of such liberal luminaries as John Kenneth Galbraith, and even ostensible arch-nemesis George McGovern.
But when it came to Rand he produced writing filled with graceless personal attacks. He seemed obsessed with her alleged personal shortcomings. Rand it seems drove the poor man batty.
Buckley´s antipathy towards Rand first manifested itself publicly in the pages of his magazine, National Review, when "Atlas Shrugged" was published in 1957. He had Whittaker Chambers pen a bizarre review which mischaracterized her views. (Robert Tracinski has written a great dissection of this "review" see "A Half-Century-Old Attack on Ayn Rand exposes the Dark side of Conservatism.") Chamber´s review missed its target, but at least it contained philosophical arguments.
But Buckley´s own attacks on Rand were emotional and personal; he barely addressed the substance of her arguments, preferring instead to sneer at her personally along with his liberal friends. Apparently such pseudo-intellectuals like Galbraith (who never made an honest economic prediction in his life) were better people than her.
But while Buckley would ridicule Rand on a personal basis for alleged personal shortcomings, his son´s book reveals a portrait of Buckley not so flattering.
He remained married to a woman who was a pathological liar and who could be viciously rude even to houseguests. But maybe we can´t blame Buckley so much for this. His son reports that Mrs. Buckley wasn´t even speaking to her husband a third of their time together. So much for Catholic family values.
Buckley himself is exposed as a self-absorbed ass, abandoning his son at his college graduation, walking out early and not returning because he was "bored." According to his son, Buckley routinely relieved himself in public outside car doors while the cars were moving. The younger Buckley´s portrait is of a father willing to take liberties with the truth, including in biographies. He´s even revealed as a petty thief.
The point about Buckley is not that he was wrong about Rand because of his personal disorders; the point is that we can now see a lot of Buckley´s antipathy towards Rand as stemming from these insecurities and character flaws. Yes, he abhorred her atheism, but there were atheists that he was a lot kinder to during his life.
Rand´s life and character stand in sharp contrast to Buckley´s and he probably knew it. Rand would never have put up with such blatant dishonesty as Buckley´s wife engaged in. Nor would Buckley´s irrational behavior towards his son go unnoticed. They met at least once. Rand had little time for this small man. He apparently was frightened of her.
Philosopher Harry Binswanger, a close associate of Rand´s, had this to say publicly after Buckley´s death: "… Ayn Rand told me that in the years following her public condemnations of Buckley, he sent her more than one letter ´crawling on his knees´ (her words) trying to get her approval and/or a rapprochement. Needless to say, he failed in this attempt."
Again, it is not my habit to comment on the personal lives of celebrities. Moreover, it is not an argument against Buckley´s positions that he was so obviously out of it. But Buckley made a career out of trashing Rand personally, not intellectually, and one cannot help but feel justice at his public bubble being burst.
And unfortunately, Buckley´s insecure rants against Rand retarded the intellectual progress of the right for decades.
The important point here involves Buckley, but it involves a lot more. The issue with Buckley is that he truly had nothing to contribute intellectually. And when faced with a true intellectual like Rand, all he could do was guttersnipe. Yet the wider point pertains to conservatism today.
Until it begins to intellectually justify itself in a logical way, conservatism will remain lost, and statism will continue its march. Rand provided the intellectual justification for capitalism and liberty and she did so by reference to the fundamental metaphysical facts of reality and human existence. She did not appeal to tradition or the supernatural. She appealed to the rational. And the public has been responding to her ever since.
Buckley and his cohorts brag about their electoral successes-"we elected Reagan" they chime. But what permanent changes have been made? The procession of the welfare state goes on. And who can stop it, people who say God went "poof" and then there were rights?
Rand made the case against the welfare state root and branch. She was the first to make a secular case against Communism and Socialism, and the first to make a fully secular defense of American values. The fact that her ideas were shut out by Buckley hurt the entire cause of Americanism.
These days people are flocking to read "Atlas Shrugged." They are not burning a hole in their wallets to buy "God and Man at Yale."
And that´s a good thing.
Print
Email
