Back to Basics

Stephen Bainbridge and David Klinghoffer have both authored their respective pieces complaining about how the conservative has been taken over by vulgarians like Rush Limbaugh and Andrew Breitbart, and pining for the days of “smart, well-read, articulate leaders” like William F. Buckley, Jr. The problem with most people who turn once living men into stone idols and then worship them, is that they discard the reality of what those men really did, to bemoan the situation today. And when they do that, they discard useful lessons that might serve them in the present.

But the real Buckley was a different man than the icon of conservatism he’s been turned into.

That Buckley had more than a little in common with Andrew Breitbart in his confrontational style, media savvy and casual arrogance. This was the William F. Buckley who ran for mayor of New York, only in order to defeat left wing Republican John Lindsay, who traded in incendiary rhetoric, while cleverly mocking both parties and the entire process while doing it. Tactics that have more than a little in common with Breitbart, Limbaugh and the Tea Party movement.

It is important to understand that Buckley did not play a vital role in the conservative movement by sitting in a drawing room and delivering the occasional bon mot. Instead he grappled with the confrontational tactics of the left, and met them on both intellectual and activism grounds. The complaints about stupid and vulgarian conservatives, is essentially a complaint about activists who are actually relevant because they viscerally confront the other side, as opposed to sitting back and moaning that the whole movement has gone to hell. It is ridiculously easy to fall backward crying, “o tempora, o mores”, it is a little more difficult to actually fight the good fight and try to make a difference.

William F. Buckley has become a stand-in for a ridiculously mannered conservatism, but that was not the Buckley who became such a force, and it was not why he managed to be relevant at a time when the sun seemed to be setting on conservatism. Instead the mannered Buckley is often summoned by conservative snobs and liberals who pine for their romantic idea of an impotent drawing room conservative who never leaves his velvet chair. The real Buckley however was a fighter, he was provocative, controversial and at times outrageous. He understood the value of theatrics and putting on a good show. He knew that as the underdog you have to be confrontational, rather than defeatist.

The idea that Buckley should be the model, rather than Limbaugh or Breitbart, misses the point. All three men were effective in a particular communications medium and era. Breitbart wouldn’t work on the radio, but he understands the internet. Limbaugh wouldn’t make much of a difference in print, but he’s spectacularly effective on the radio. The man has to be matched to the medium. So does the language, the tone and the message.

But it’s not really about Buckley, it’s about using him as a prop to attack populist conservatism, to lump it all under the same stereotypes as liberals do. And to do that is to kill conservatism entirely, to turn it into a faint shadow of liberalism, but without the excess, as has happened in the UK, and as can be seen in the United States Congress. It’s not Buckley that they’re really championing, but Lindsay, an empty suit in search of all the right words to stuff inside it.

It’s usual enough for the different factions in the Republican party to grouse about each other, but the blanket condemnations of the party as a whole, by people who want to drum out all social conservatives, neo-conservatives and anyone who listens to talk radio, would leave the party with what exactly? The very outlets and outbursts that they despise, actually show the vitality of the Republican party. Not as a set of books on a shelf, but as beliefs and goals that people will actually fight for.

A transcript from CNN’s Situation Room:

Wolf Blitzer says, “What’s wrong with the folks in Arizona wanting to protect their border?”

CALDERON: In Arizona, there is some racial profiling criteria in order to enforce the law that it’s against any sense of human rights; and, of course, is provoking very disappointing, uh, things — or very disappointing opinion — in Mexico and around the world, even here in America. So to introduce this kind of elements, especially racial profiling aspect that are attempting against what we consider human rights, it’s the principle of discrimination which is against the values of this great nation.

Blitzer: “So if people want to come from Guatemala or Honduras or El Salvador or Nicaragua, they want to just come into Mexico, can they just walk in?”

CALDERON: No! They need to fulfill, uh, a form. They need to establish their right name. We analyze if they have not a criminal precedence.

BLITZER: Do Mexican police go around asking for papers of people they suspect are illegal immigrants?

CALDERON: Of course! Of course!

BLITZER: If somebody sneaks in from Nicaragua or some other country in Central America through the southern border of Mexico and they wind up in Mexico, they can going get a job?

Corruption in government – it starts with the election process.  Special interest groups, labor unions, big pharma, all making campaign contributions supporting the candidate that is going to give them the back room deals they are after.  Why do you think this country is in this much trouble!  They have all basically bought and paid for the candidate of choice, the one who is looking out for their special interests instead of the interests of the American people.  The corruption needs to stop now, and reform needs to start with the funding of political campaigns.

The democrats seem to want to make everything equal – take from the rich and give to the poor.  So let’s start with campaign funding.  Let’s implement this equal for all system for the politicians, right from the start of the campaign process.  It’s time for a radical campaign funding change.

Instead of companies and individuals supporting one candidate over another, campaign contributions would be made to a government fund for each elected position.  There would be one fund for the president, one for each state senator race, one for each representative of the house race.  All campaign monies would go into this fund and NO OTHER funding for campaigns would be permitted.  The money from these funds would then be divided equally to all candidates running for that position, whether it be two or more.  Everyone would have an equal opportunity in campaigning for the desired position.

How the campaign spends this money would be up to them, but they would have to limit spending to only the money received from the fund.  It would be restricted, of course, to legal activities only.  At the end of the campaign a full disclosure of the money would be required within a specific timeframe and an audit would be completed on the final campaign funds.  Any money remaining from the election would be returned to the fund for the next elections.  There could be no “outstanding balance due” at the end of the campaign.

A radical move, but the problems we see in the government today are because every special interest group and every company has their own agenda and they have all made deals with the politicians to get what they want.  They donate and expect to receive benefits in return – and they don’t just mean a thank you letter.  The government is no longer run by the people, for the people.  It is being run by special interests and big business.  This has got to stop!  Start the reform where the corruption begins – the campaign funding.  Equal opportunity for everyone.