William F. Buckley

[[File:William_F._Buckley,_Jr._1985.jpg|thumb|right|165px|"Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive." So here's why we should nuke China.]]{{pundits}}
{{cquote|The central question that emerges—and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizens, born Equal—is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes—the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.|||Buckley, behind a veil of prose and euphemisms, says, "yes, whitey shooty the blacky"<ref name=prevail>[https://archive.org/details/sim_national-review-1955_1957-08-24_4_7/page/148/mode/2up Why the South Must Prevail] editorial (by William F. Buckley) (August 24, 1957) ''National Review''. Pages 148-149.</ref>}}
{{cquote|It should tell you something about conservative intellectualism that the most memorable thing William F. Buckley ever said involved a [[homophobic]] slur and a threat of violence.|||Nathan Robinson, Current Affairs<ref>[https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/09/how-to-be-a-respectable-public-intellectual How To Be A Respectable Public Intellectual] </ref>}}

'''William F. Buckley Jr.''' {{lived|1925|2008}} was an [[American]] [[pundit|political commentator]] from the mid-20<sup>th</sup> century who was highly prone to [[sesquipedalianism]]. Buckley was a founder of "Movement Conservativism" (or [[New Right (United States)|New Right conservativism]]) in the early 1950s, a [[reactionary]] form of [[conservativism]] opposed to the then dominant "go-slow" and compromise approach. He was also a [[libertarian]], believing that government's only duties are protecting life, liberty and property (''sotto voce'', similar to the proponents of [[slavery]]).<ref name=richardson>''How the South Won the Civil War: Oligarchy, Democracy and the Continuing Fight for the Soul of America'' by Heather Cox Richardson (2022) Oxford University Press. ISBN 019758179X.</ref>{{rp|155}}<ref>''Happy Days Were Here Again: Reflections of a Libertarian Journalist'' by William F. Buckley, Jr. (1993) Random House. ISBN 0679403981.</ref> Buckley is sometimes seen as an ancestor of the [[New Right (United States)|modern American right-wing]], although in many ways he [[Paleoconservatism|differs radically from the modern right]].  Most especially, his was an ''intellectual'' conservatism; he matriculated at Yale and became well known for his erudition and powerful [[argument]]ative skills. Of course, his ideas behind the prose and big words were just as rancid and [[evil]] as his contemporaries at the time, worse in some areas, and some were scarily similar to the [[rhetoric]] of the right wing after the rise of sub-literate [[Donald Trump]] in 2016. If you care, the vaunted "F." as his middle initial stood for "Frank".

Buckley's prominent works included ''[[God and Man at Yale]]'', a critique of [[secularism]] in academia; ''Firing Line'', a political debate TV show in which he displayed both the aforementioned erudition and a willingness to actually ''listen'' to his opponents; and most importantly, the conservative paper ''[[National Review]]''. (You can see how well the ''National Review'' has turned out [[Jonah Goldberg|without]] [[Rich Lowry|him]], although we doubt it'd be much better ''with'' him.) 

Buckley ran for Mayor of [[New York City]] in 1965 as the candidate of the Conservative Party, against liberal Republican John Lindsay (who won) and Democrat Abe Beame (who succeeded Lindsay). Buckley came a distant third, scoring 13.4% of the vote. Buckley's brother, James Buckley, fared better in politics, serving as New York Senator from 1971-1977.

==Résumé==
===Fame===
{{cquote|If we have reached the point where rank-and-file conservatives see nothing amiss with giving [[Sean Hannity|Hannity]] an award named for Buckley, then surely there’s a [[Milton Friedman]] Prize awaiting [[Steve Bannon]] for his insights on [[free trade]].|||Bret Stephens<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/06/opinion/conservatives-media.html "Sean Hannity Is No William F. Buckley"] by Bret Stephens (6 July 2017) ''The New York Times''.</ref>}}

*Chased some [[anti-Semitism|anti-Semites]] out of the New Right, along with other [[fringe]] lunatics such as the [[John Birch Society]] and [[Ayn Rand]].<ref>''Culture Wars: An Encyclopedia of Issues, Viewpoints, and Voices'' by Roger Chapman (2009) Routledge. [[Special:Booksources/0765617617|ISBN 0765617617]].</ref><ref>''Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right'' by Jennifer Burns (2009) Oxford University Press. [[Special:Booksources/0195324870|ISBN 0195324870]].</ref> [[Objectivist]]s still hate him for that. The New Right is still filled with [[bigot]]s and overall dumbassery, however.
*:"However mythologized by movement conservatives since, Buckley’s halting project of excommunication was more notable for its ineffectuality and tardiness than its impact in drawing a cordon sanitaire."&nbsp;— Daniel Schlozman & Sam Rosenfeld<ref name=dallek>[https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/03/31/buckley-john-birch-society-00087893 Debunking a Longstanding Myth About William F. Buckley: The popular notion that the ''National Review'' founder expelled the fringe from the conservative movement is wrong.] by Matthew Dallek (03/31/2023 04:30 AM EDT).</ref><ref>''Birchers: How the John Birch Society Radicalized the American Right'' by Matthew Dallek (2023) Basic Books. ISBN 1541673565.</ref>{{rp|12}}
*In 1957, he paid [[The South|Southern]] [[journalist]] {{wpl|James J. Kilpatrick}} to write a piece for the ''National Review'' defending segregation.<ref name=richardson/>{{rp|159}}<ref>[https://archive.org/details/sim_national-review-1955_1957-09-28_4_12/page/272/mode/2up "Right and Power in Arkansas"] by James J. Kilpatrick (September 28, 1957) ''National Review''. Pages 273-275.</ref> Buckley's own defense of white supremacy preceded this by a month in ''National Review''.<ref name=prevail/> As late as 1962, Buckley found it easy to flip from defending to attacking segregationists.<ref name=dallek/>{{rp|74-75}} Eventually, he ensured that [[segregation]]ists, such as [[George Wallace]], were marginalized in 1968.<ref>[https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2017/03/06/resisting-trump-the-william-f-buckley-jr-way-rich-barlow Anatomy Of A Takedown: William F. Buckley Jr. Vs. George Wallace] by Rich Barlow (March 06, 2017) ''WBUR''.</ref>
*Managed to convince people across the spectrum that merging [[Tory]]-style high culture with the GOP's low culture was a Good Thing,<ref>[http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-bill-buckley-lesson-for-conservatism-today-1456530358 "Bill Buckley's Lesson for Today's Conservatives"] by Neal B. Freeman (Updated Feb. 27, 2016 8:11 a.m. ET) ''Wall Street Journal''.</ref> and Buckley was one of those Respected Conservatives™ that just don't exist anymore in spite of the vehement racism, praise of [[far-right]] dictators, willingness to deploy [[nuke]]s, and more. Buckley may have ''hated'' [[Gore Vidal]], [[Noam Chomsky|Chomsky]], et al., but the vocabulary and tenor of these guys just blows you away by distracting you from their abhorrent ideas. There is no modern Buckley and Vidal and we don't want another.
*His son, Christopher Buckley, is a fairly pleasant, self-aware, and arguably sane conservative.{{efn|Though [[wingnuts]] have hated him ever since he endorsed [[Obama]] in 2008.<ref>[http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2008/10/10/the-conservative-case-for-obama.html Sorry, Dad, I'm Voting for Obama: The son of William F. Buckley has decided—shock!—to vote for a Democrat.] by Christopher Buckley (Updated Jul. 14, 2017 6:01PM ET; Published Oct. 10, 2008 3:33AM ET) ''Daily Beast''.</ref>}}
*Criticized [[Donald Trump]]. This is not a high bar to cross. Buckley characterized Trump as a "demagogue" who'd pose danger to conservatism and "trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP in favor of a free-floating populism with strong-man overtones"<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20160124034019/http://www.thenation.com/article/donald-trump-is-ridiculously-wrong-about-william-f-buckley/ Donald Trump Is Ridiculously Wrong About William F. Buckley: The billionaire thinks the conservative icon would object to National Review's "Against Trump" issue. But Buckley decried Trump as a demagogue.] by John Nichols (January 22, 2016) ''The Nation''.</ref> (as if the GOP was ever coherent in their ideology). This is in spite of his own efforts that threw Republicans further right (see next section)
*Wrote a bunch of mediocre [[Intelligence (government)|spy]] novels.
*Wanted to outlaw [[tobacco]] use in America (though in pleas for the [[free market]] or something), and being a smoker probably helped him on this viewpoint.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20080526042917/http://www.nysun.com/opinion/my-smoking-confessional/67349/ My Smoking Confessional] by William F. Buckley Jr. (December 3, 2007) '"New York Sun''.</ref>

===Infamy===
*He championed the release of convicted murderer {{wpl|Edgar Smith (murderer)|Edgar H. Smith|,}} establishing a defense fund with top-notch lawyers. After Smith's eventual release, Smith was convicted of the brutal assault and stabbing of another woman, and he finally confessed to the first murder.<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/edgar-h-smith-death-row-inmate-whose-release-was-championed-by-william-f-buckley-jr-dies-at-83/2017/09/23/f2bc95c6-9e30-11e7-8ea1-ed975285475e_story.html Edgar H. Smith, death row inmate whose release was championed by William F. Buckley Jr., dies at 83] by Paul W. Valentine (September 23 at 9:00 PM) ''The Washington Post''.</ref>
*[[War on drugs|Republican drug policy]] is a legacy of the 1960s, when [[marijuana]] was associated with [[hippie]]s and the unrest that came with them. When [[Richard Nixon]] ran for President saying he spoke for the "[[Silent Majority]]" and [[Ronald Reagan]] ran for governor saying he would "clean up the mess in Berkeley", both of those platforms involved hard-line stances against drug users. William Buckley Jr. (himself a pill-popper who admitted to smoking [[Cannabis|pot]] on his yacht in international waters<ref group=note>According to Christopher B., he was a pretty ardent user. In his book "Losing Mum and Pup," the younger Buckley writes that his father developed a habit of downing sleeping pills, [[Alcohol|booze]] and Ritalin in an attempt to moderate his alertness and his sleep. "Pup's self-medicating was, I'd venture, a chemical extension of the control he asserted over every other aspect of his life," Christopher wrote.</ref>) was the ideological driving force behind those policies. He believed that with the new research on addiction being an illness meant that drug users were carriers and would introduce drugs to others. By incarcerating them, the idea was that drug use would be contained within a generation ([[Hypocrisy|self excepted]]).<ref>[http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/william-f-buckley-rest-in-praise/ William F. Buckley, Rest in Praise: Glowing obits obscure an ugly record] by Steve Rendall (June 1, 2008) ''FAIR''.</ref> By 1988 he admitted that he was wrong and that the policy was a failure and harmful.<ref>[http://www.nationalreview.com/article/383913/war-drugs-lost-nro-staff The War on Drugs is Lost] by NRO Staff (July 28, 2014 3:07 PM) ''National Review''.</ref> Too bad, by then [[Prison industrial complex|interests were vested in the continuation.]]
*Helped inadvertently [[Reactionary|radical]]ize the Republican Party, probably more than anyone else.<ref>[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/the_end_of_republican_fusionis.html The End of Republican 'Fusionism'?] by Rovert Tracinski (March 01, 2008) ''Real Clear Politics''.</ref> Along with throwing out the loonies, he then started to purify the GOP of those who he thought weren't [[No True Scotsman|''true'' conservatives]]. This meant the fairly respectable [[Rockefeller Republican|Rockefeller]]/[[Eisenhower]]/[[Lincoln]] Republicans who had formerly dominated the party. He mainly did this by throwing his support behind [[Barry Goldwater]] and on at least one occasion he went so far as to endorse a [[Joe Lieberman|certain Democrat]] for senator just so a liberal Republican would lose.<ref>''William F. Buckley, Jr.: Patron Saint of the Conservatives'' by John B. Judis (2001) Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0743217977.</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20130615114717/http://nationalreview.com/content/did-he-kiss-joe Did He Kiss Joe?] by William F. Buckley Jr. (July 5, 2006 4:25 PM) ''National Review''.</ref> He admitted his mayoral campaign was mainly designed to sabotage John Lindsay, whom he considered too liberal a Republican.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20161117183701/http://www.city-journal.org/html/william-f-buckley%E2%80%99s-unmaking-mayor-10367.html William F. Buckley's Unmaking of a Mayor…and the making of a national coalition] by Fred Siegel (March 3, 2008) ''City Journal''.</ref>
*Brought ''[[laissez-faire]]'' to the New Right, which was at odds with the more traditional stance of not touching regulation one way or the other so long as it wasn't needlessly damaging to the economy. This would encourage the GOP to [[deregulate]] nearly everything they could get their hands on, and [[Great Recession|this is what we got]].
*Set the "groundwork" that would get [[Saint Ronnie]] elected president.
*Brought [[Dinesh D'Souza]] to prominence (''caveat emptor'').
*Supported [[apartheid]] in South Africa.<ref>[https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2013/12/mandela-and-conservative-racial-blindness.html Why Conservatives Got Segregation Wrong a Second Time in South Africa]</ref>
*He wrote a column arguing for tattooing people with [[AIDS]], saying "Everyone detected with AIDS should be tatooed{{sic}} in the upper forearm, to protect [[Drug abuse|common-needle users]], and on the buttocks, to prevent the victimization of other [[homosexuals]]."<ref>[https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/00/07/16/specials/buckley-aids.html "Crucial Steps in Combating the AIDS Epidemic: Identify All the Carriers"] by William F. Buckley (March 18, 1986) ''The New York Times''.</ref> He demonstrated both ignorance of AIDS transmission (not everyone was getting tested), and of tattoos (which can be removed).

===Racism===
William F. Buckley, when starting the ''National Review'', was an ardent supporter of segregation. He later renounced his support for segregation in the mid-1960s, but his racism would only morph into another issue. In addition, he even wrote an article in support of [[white supremacy]], only falling short of [[racialist]]s of the time, and he never really apologized for the article.<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/11/magazine/way-we-live-now-7-11-04-questions-for-william-f-buckley-conservatively-speaking.html The Way We Live Now, 7/11/04: Questions for William F. Buckley; Conservatively Speaking] by Deborah Solomon (July 11, 2004) ''The New York Times''.</ref> In response to Coretta Scott King's failed negotiations to get a statue for [[Martin Luther King Jr.]], Buckley said the equivalent of this: "[[Reverse racism|No, she's the ''real racist'']]! If Martin Luther King Jr. was white he wouldn't get a statue either! [[Bullshit|Andrew Jackson has no statues after all!]] She should be told to stop being such a racist and so antagonistic."<ref name=robinson>Robinson, N. (September 10, 2020). "[https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/09/how-to-be-a-respectable-public-intellectual William F. Buckley How To Be A Respectable Public Intellectual]". ''Current Affairs''. Accessed February 7, 2021.</ref>{{efn|What Buckley actually wrote was far more disprespectful of the widow:{{cquote|Because Mr. Nixon would never have paused to negotiate with Mrs. King concerning a national memorial to her husband except for the fact that Dr. King was a Negro… If he had been white, the suggestion of raising a monument to him would have been presumptively ridiculous, not because a white man carrying the message of Dr. King on into martyrdom would be less than an object of national honor, but because there is a long line of men who are deemed to have been national benefactors who have not yet been memorialized in concrete, and some of them have been dead (Andrew Jackson, say) for more than 100 Years…. [King] was the spokesman for a point of view on citizenship which in the opinion of some—e.g., me—is mortal to civil society… Above all, Mrs. King should be counseled to stop the racist talk.<ref name=robinson/>}}
Buckley was factually wrong about Jackson. There has been a statue of him in Lafayette Square in Washington, DC since 1853.<ref>[https://www.whitehousehistory.org/andrew-jackson-statue-lafayette-square Andrew Jackson Statue, Lafayette Square] ''The White House Historical Association''.</ref>
}}

Despite having status of a "respected" conservative "intellectual", some of Buckley's views on hot issues for his time were on par with other vehement racists, with some shockingly similar to some of today's Trump supporters of late 2010s. Similar to many conservative pundits suggesting [[conspiracy]] to stem sympathy for victims concerning attacks on Democratic politicians (see conservative pundit reactions of the aftermath of the failed [[2018 United States mail bombing attempts]]), Buckley and other ''National Review'' editors offered the idea that the {{wpl|16th Street Baptist Church bombing}} was carried out by 
[[Antifascist Action|antifa]]
 a provocateur or a "crazed" African American for setting "back the cause of the white people there so dramatically".<ref>Rendall, S. (June 1, 2008). "[https://fair.org/home/william-f-buckley-rest-in-praise/comment-page-1/ William F. Buckley, Rest in Praise: Glowing obits obscure an ugly record]". ''Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting''. Accessed February 7, 2020. {{quotebox|''National Review'' editors condemned the 1963 bombing of a black Birmingham Church that killed four children, but because it "set back the cause of the white people there so dramatically," the editors wondered "whether in fact the explosion was the act of a [[provocateur]]—of a [[Communist]], or of a crazed Negro"}}</ref> After  Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination, Buckley also suggested that this could be carried out by a "leftist" because a [[Ku Klux Klan|Klan]] member wouldn't do this to arouse anger against their group. In addition, Buckley, while trying to condemn the violence, tried to use the now common "[[Blaming the victim|look at what you made me do]]" excuse for the assassin by claiming that "the cretin who leveled his rifle at the head of Martin Luther King, may have absorbed the talk[…] about the supremacy of the individual conscience, such talk as Martin Luther King… had so widely, and so indiscriminately, indulged in."

He also praised {{wpl|The Camp of the Saints|''The Camp of the Saints''|,}} a book so racist praising pretty much instantly outs you as a racist.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20070430112736/http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=%2Fbuckley%2Fwfb200407231332.asp No Irish Need Apply] by William F. Buckley (July 23, 2004, 1:32 p.m.) ''National Review'' (archived from April 30, 2007).</ref>

===Authoritarianism===
{{main|Authoritarianism}}
William F. Buckley was unabashedly in support of authoritarian regimes as well as supporting bombing several countries he didn't like. He spoke ''very'' favorably of [[fascist]] [[dictator]]s such as [[Francisco Franco]]<ref>"Yes, and Many Thanks, But Now the War Is Over" by William F. Buckley (October 26, 1957) ''National Review'' "General Franco is an authentic national hero."</ref><ref>[https://newrepublic.com/article/122413/national-reviews-bad-conscience National Review's Bad Conscience: Why the magazine is quick to accuse liberals of fascism and Nazism] by Jeet Heer (July 29, 2015) ''The New Republic''.</ref> and [[Augusto Pinochet]]<ref>"Pinochet? Why Him?" by William F. Buckley (November 23, 1998) ''National Review''.</ref> because they opposed [[communism]] and despite the fact that the left-wing governments their [[coup d'état]]s toppled were [[Democracy|democratically elected]]. He even praised Franco after Franco's death. Buckley was co-leader of the American-Chilean Council, a [[propaganda]] [[front group]] that was partly-funded by Pinochet.<ref>''The Pinochet File: A Declassified Dossier on Atrocity and Accountability'' by Peter Kornbluth (2003) New Press. ISBN 1565845862.</ref>{{rp|224}}<ref>''Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present'' by Ruth Ben-Ghiat (2021) W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 0393868419.</ref>{{rp|108}}

Buckley really didn't like viewpoints that were opposed to him. Really. While he walked back a bit on many of his views or at least morphed them when they were no longer politically acceptable, [[McCarthyism]] was one he never really changed. He even wrote an entire book on the topic of McCarthy, called ''McCarthy and His Enemies: The Record and Its Meaning'' where he defended the Senator against his critics.<ref>''McCarthy and His Enemies: The Record and Its Meaning'' by William F. Buckley Jr. & L. Brent Bozell  (1954) Regnery Publishing. ISBN 0895264722. Page 132.</ref> However, for a defense of the man, it is actually rather weak. Edward Cain, paraphrasing the criticisms of Elmer Davis, noted:

{{quotebox|The is nothing in the book about the exploits that took up most of McCarthy's time: the long, futile, and devastating investigations at Fort Monmouth, the shattering attack on the Overseas Information Agency, or the strange ethics underling Cohn and Schine. Nor is anything said of the censure hearings and Joseph Welch of Boston, or the campaign against the Voice of America.<ref name=Cain>''They'd Rather Be Right'' by Edward Cain</ref>{{rp|58}}}}

Instead, large chunks of the book are spent pointing out how dangerous communists are and how we need to be willing to be careful in order to defeat them. As Chris Orlet put it in an article for Counterpunch:

{{quotebox|In ''McCarthy and His Enemies'', Buckley suggested the ruined lives of these so-called “security risks” and “policy misfits” was a small price to pay for the increased “security” which resulted from the witch hunts (this despite the fact that no evidence of subversion was ever discovered). Besides, Buckley maintained, employment in the civil service was a privilege, not a right, therefore the burden of proof of innocence rested, not with the government, but with the accused. When it came to the noble cause of eradicating the cancer of communism, a few thousand innocent victims, and the trampling of due process, was a small price to pay.<ref>[https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/09/15/the-dark-side-of-william-f-buckley-jr/ The Dark Side of William F. Buckley, Jr.]</ref>}}

Additionally, Buckley’s career began in 1951 with the publication of ''God and Man at Yale'', an attack on his alma mater that urged the firing of professors whom he felt were [[Fellow traveler|insufficiently hostile]] to [[socialism]] ''and'' [[atheism]]. Despite this early assault on academic freedom, Buckley in later years routinely took offense at what he saw as liberal "[[political correctness]]".<ref>[http://articles.latimes.com/1993-07-10/entertainment/ca-11646_1_liberal-arts-program TV Reviews: Liberal Arts Education Is Focus of the 'Firing Line'] by Robert Kohler (July 10, 1993, 12 AM) ''Los Angeles Times''.</ref>

[[Freedom]] [[Hypocrisy|if it's only ''your'' freedom]], right?

===Bombs, bombs, and bombs===
William F. Buckley really loved bombs. During the [[Cold War]], Buckley advocated [[Crimes against humanity|preemptive]] [[War crimes|strikes]] [[Nuclear war|against disfavored nations]]. In 1965, four years after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, he continued to call for an invasion of [[Cuba]]. The same year, he called for a [[Nuclear war|nuclear attack]] on [[China]]'s nuclear production facilities. In a syndicated column, he urged a nuclear attack on North [[Vietnam]].<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20130416011904/http://geneticmail.com/scott/library/text/vidalesquire69.html "A Distasteful Encounter with William F. Buckley Jr."] by Gore Vidal September 1969) ''Esquire''.</ref>

In a debate with [[Carl Sagan]], he argued strongly in support of stockpiling [[nuclear weapon]]s as a means to keep the [[USSR]] in check, even though both sides already had enough nukes to destroy each other multiple times over.{{efn|Not all nuclear weapons will find their targets; some will be shot down, malfunction, or otherwise miss their marks. Furthermore, some high-value assets, such as the Three Gorges Dam in China, are built to withstand nuclear attacks.}}

Paradoxically, he was an outspoken critic of [[Dubya]] and [[neoconservatism]] in general after the [[Iraq War]].<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20060805111618/http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/22/eveningnews/main1826838.shtml Buckley: Bush Not A True Conservative] (July 22, 2006, 8:27 PM) ''CBS Evening News''. Oh boy, did Buckley have quite the weakness for [[No true Scotsman]].</ref>

==See also==
*[[Gore Vidal]]

==Videos==
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vgT7Wr7Nkc "I'll sock you in the goddamn face!"]
*[https://www.rimaregas.com/2015/06/07/transcript-james-baldwin-debates-william-f-buckley-1965-blog42/ Transcript: James Baldwin debates William F. Buckley (1965)] — noteworthy because of Baldwin's forcefully eloquent introductory statement, and for Buckley resoundingly losing the debate<ref>[https://archive.ph/Utax3 The Famous Baldwin-Buckley Debate Still Matters Today: In 1965, two American titans faced off on the subject of the country’s racial divides. Nearly 55 years later, the event has lost none of its relevance, as a recent book attests.] by Gabrielle Bellot (December 2, 2019) ''The Atlantic''.</ref>

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}

==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Buckley, William F.}}
[[Category:Atheophobia]]
[[Category:Authors]]
[[Category:Catholics]]
[[Category:Christians]]
[[Category:Cold War]]
[[Category:Homophobes]]
[[Category:Libertarians]]
[[Category:Neoconservatives]]
[[Category:New York]]
[[Category:Pseudoscience promoters]]
[[Category:Racists]]
[[Category:Right-wing activists]]
[[Category:Sexists]]
[[Category:White supremacists]]

Categories: Atheophobia, Authors, Catholics, Christians, Cold War, Homophobes, Libertarians, Neoconservatives, New York, Pseudoscience promoters, Racists, Right-wing activists, Sexists, White supremacists