REMARKS BY HENRY KISSINGER
NATIONAL REVIEW 40TH ANNIVERSARY DINNER

OCTOBER 13, 1995

As Delivered

Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen:

When we first met - dare I admit it was forty years ago - Bill Buckley told me, with an assurance that not even the passage of the decades has managed to enhance, of his plans to create a journal of conservative opinion and to revamp the political center of gravity of our country. The urgency of neither objective was self-evident to me. But then I did not think that much would come of Bill's enterprise.

We celebrate tonight the triumph of faith over Ivy League orthodoxy; Bill Buckley and National Review have become part of our intellectual landscape as inseparable evangelists for truth and of the preservation of a decent American republic based on conservative principles.

In 1955, at my first encounter with Bill's certitudes, American conservatism had no institutional existence. There were isolated academic strongholds like the University of Chicago; conservatism could boast of a few distinguished literary and philosophical figures like John Dos Passos and Richard Weaver; and it could call on the talents of some brilliant journalists who, then as now, were swimming against the tide of their profession. But across the broad political landscape, in the Republican as well as the Democratic Party, liberalism was the dominant ideology, either actively or by default. Liberals in fact felt sure enough to appeal for some vestigial conservatism to emerge from the depths to provide them with an intellectual challenge - an infallible sign of their confidence that no such apparition would appear.

How wrong they were! Bill Buckley and National Review emerged athwart history yelling Stop - conjuring forth a process that has led to the present state of affairs in which liberalism has become the ideology that dare not speak its name. Many have had a role in this revolution. But no one - not Barry Goldwater, not Ronald Reagan - played a greater part than Bill Buckley and the megaphone for conservatism that he created in National Review.

Of course, even as conservatism has gained in the voting booth, many parts of America surely have continued to practice liberalism in most other aspects of our lives. The philosophical improvements in the last 40 years have not arrested the progressive rending of America's social fabric - that no one can deny, least of all in the aftermath of the O.J. Simpson trial. As a result, it has been the melancholy fate of National Review, to see its warnings too often proved right only after the fact. Bill's attitude toward human folly is indulgent, less like Cassandra than like the Emperor Maximilian of Mexico who, just before he went in front of the firing squad, turned to his Hungarian chef and said, "You thought it would never come to this. You see now that you were wrong."

Now that conservatism has begun to win Congressional as well as presidential elections, it is to be hoped that your warnings will be more effectually heeded and that our nation's divisions halted and reversed.

I have a professional reason for wanting to thank Bill and National Review here tonight. And that reason is foreign policy - a topic on which (let me put this as mildly as I can) Bill and the magazine have not always applauded my views. Indeed, I know that Bill Buckley regarded the Opening to China as the first symptom of the Closing of the American Mind.

At the risk of evoking contradiction, let me affirm that I have always considered these criticisms as family arguments on the same side of the barricades. Whatever our disagreements, I never failed to consider the conservatism of National Review an indispensable and, in its basic approach, an essentially correct strategic analysis of America's role in the world. Neither Bill nor National Review was tempted by fantasies of going it alone or of allowing the rest of the world to sink into a chaos of anarchy and disorder. Their approach, based firmly on a shrewd grasp of international reality, was a vital factor in Cold War politics. For when, under the impact of Vietnam, liberals began to turn isolationist and to doubt America's core values, the conservative movement was there to sustain a foreign policy based upon a broad view of America's national interest and an affirmation of America's principles. In the end that led to the victory in the Cold War - and to many lesser victories along the way. And it is my unrepentant view that if we had not suffered Watergate and the election of a Congress indifferent to the fate of our allies in South Vietnam, we would not have suffered the humiliating debacle of 1975, nor the subsequent Vietnam Syndrome, nor the follies in Afghanistan, Angola and Central American to which they led.

Forty years ago, Bill and his colleagues called us to our duty to redefine America's domestic agenda. That task has been brilliantly accomplished. Tonight let me use this occasion to tell you of the desperate need for an equivalent conservative agenda in foreign policy. But the agenda is different from the domestic one. In domestic politics it was sufficient to sweep away the heavy hand of the state and thereby to liberate individual initiative. In foreign policy there is no such automatic mechanism or a single approach, especially in the post-Cold War era. A strategy must be developed even as cobwebs are removed and this, unlike domestic policy, requires a well-organized and purposeful central authority.

Ronald Reagan's brilliant success in presiding over the collapse of international Communism has brought us into a world without a clear-cut global ideological or geopolitical challenge, in whose stability and progress we have a deep interest, both because of our values and the interdependence of a global economy. Too much of the current debate is framed by would-be internationalists who abdicate a specific American role to a vapid multilateralism or by self-proclaimed moralists whose definition of morality is to denigrate the core values of our own civilization.

Self-righteous isolationism is not the appropriate counter to these tendencies. As someone often accused of reading Metternich by candlelight, let me warn against the congenital sin of the Habsburgs, which was always to fight in the last ditch, never in the first. Let us define a national interest broad enough to be relevant to a concept of world order, yet sufficiently specific to affirm with pride what made our civilization great: a standard of justice beyond the reach of temporal power, the concept of individual human dignity, the principle of limited government and the decisive role of human conscience. These values are at once the hope of mankind, and they are under siege both at home and internationally. But affirming them is not enough; affirmation must lead to a roadmap of how to get from where we are to

2

where we have never been in managing a world which we can neither dominate nor leave to
its own devices.

Some conservative pronouncements on foreign policy create the impression that all that is needed for the walls of Jericho to crumble is to sound the trumpet. Do let us by all means sound the trumpet, but remember, too, that after the forces are rallied a strategy is required for walls to be assailed and indeed to establish priorities for which walls to attack.

I have every confidence that National Review, the principal conservative magazine, will be
as strong, shrewd and principled a voice for a realistic and purposeful American foreign
policy as it has been in changing the direction of American domestic politics.

Let me close on a personal note. Bill and Pat's friendship has sustained me humanly, just as National Review has sustained America's faith and honor, at home and abroad, in foreign and domestic policy. Whether Bill disorients me by raising an eyebrow as he did sitting in the front row while I was explaining the virtues of the Shanghai Communiqué at a press conference, or whether National Review proves it fallibility by castigating me, at the end of the day the equilibrium and purpose of my life owe more than these words can express to my certainty that when things are really difficult - and I mean really difficult, as with Leonidas and the 300 Spartans, or as Horatius at the bridge - I won't have to look around to know that Bill Buckley and National Review will be right there beside me.

3

As Delivered

2

I am, of course, delighted to be a guest here tonight, and
honored to be asked to say a few words about Bill Buckley and
National Review.

1

2

as the Democratic Party, liberalism was the dominant ideology,
either actively or by default. Liberals in fact felt sure enough to
appeal for some vestigial conservatism to emerge from the deep to
provide them with an intellectual challenge - an infallible sign of
their confidence that no such apparition would appear.

3

Of course, even as conservatism has gained in the voting
booth, many parts of America surely have continued to practice
liberalism in most other aspects of our lives. The philosophical
improvements in the last 40 years have not arrested the progressive
rending of America's social fabric - that no one can deny, least of
all in the aftermath of the O.J. Simpson trial. As a result, it has
been the melancholy fate of National Review, to see its warnings
too often proved right only after the fact. Bill's attitude toward
human folly is patient, less like Cassandra than like the Emperor
Maximilian of Mexico who, just before he went in front of the
firing squad, turned to his Hungarian chef and said, "You thought
it would never come to this. You see now that you were wrong."

4

I have a particular reason for wanting to thank Bill and
National Review here tonight. And that reason is foreign policy -
a topic on which (let me put this as mildly as I can) Bill and the
magazine have not always applauded my views. Indeed, I know
that Bill Buckley regarded the Opening to China as the first
symptom of the Closing of the American Mind.

5

same side of the barricades. Whatever our disagreements, I never failed to consider the conservatism of National Review an indispensable and, in its basic approach, an essentially correct strategic analysis of America's role in the world. Neither Bill nor National Review was tempted by fantasies of going it alone or of allowing the rest of the world to sink into a chaos of anarchy and disorder. Their approach was based firmly on a shrewd grasp of international reality. It was a vital factor in Cold War politics, because when, under the impact of Vietnam, liberals began to turn isolationist the conservative movement was there to sustain a foreign policy based upon a broad view of America's national interest. In the end that led to the victory in the Cold War - and to

6

7

hand of the state and thereby to liberate individual initiative. In
foreign policy there is no such automatic mechanism. A strategy
must be developed even as cobwebs are removed.

Ronald Reagan's brilliant success in presiding over the
collapse of international Communism has brought us into a world
without a clear-cut global ideological or geopolitical challenge, but
in whose stability and progress we have a deep interest, both
because of our values and the interdependence of a global
economy. Too much of the current debate is framed by would-be
internationalists who abdicate a specific American role to a vapid
multilateralism or by self-proclaimed moralists whose definition of
morality is to denigrate the core values of our own civilization.

8

LYJ

The counter to these tendencies is self-righteous isolationism. As someone often accused of reading Metternich by candlelight, let me warn against the congenital sin of the Habsburgs, which was always to fight in the last ditch, never in the first. Let us define a national interest broad enough to be relevant to a concept of world order, yet sufficiently specific to affirm with pride what made our civilization great: a standard of justice beyond the reach of temporal power, the concept of individual human dignity, the principle of limited government and the decisive role of human conscience. These values are at once the hope of mankind, and they are under siege both at home and internationally. But affirming them is not enough; affirmation must lead to a roadmap

9

of how to get from where we are to where we have never been.

Some conservative pronouncements on foreign policy create
the impression that all that is needed for the walls of Jericho to
crumble is to sound the trumpet. Do let us all means sound the
trumpet, but remember, too, that after the forces are rallied a
strategy is required for walls to be assailed and indeed to establish
priorities for which walls to attack. Foreign policy must serve
history; and history is more complex than a slogan.

10

the virtues of the Shanghai Communique at a press conference, or

11

In domestic politics it was sufficient to sweep away the heavy hand
of the state and thereby to liberate individual initiative. In foreign
policy there is no such automatic mechanism. A strategy must be
developed even as cobwebs are removed and this, unlike domestic
policy, requires a well-organized and purposeful central authority.

8

Self-righteous isolationism is not the appropriate counter to these
tendencies. As someone often accused of reading Metternich by
candlelight, let me warn against the congenital sin of the Habsburgs,
which was always to fight in the last ditch, never in the first. Let us
define a national interest broad enough to be relevant to a concept
of world order, yet sufficiently specific to affirm with pride what
our civilization great: a standard of justice beyond the reach of
temporal power, the concept of individual human dignity, the
principle of limited government and the decisive role of human
conscience. These values are at once the hope of mankind, and

9

foreign policy. But the agenda is different from the domestic one. In domestic politics it
was sufficient to sweep away the heavy hand of the state and thereby to liberate individual
initiative. In foreign policy there is no such automatic mechanism. A strategy must be
developed even as cobwebs are removed and this, unlike domestic policy, requires a well-
organized and purposeful central authority.

Ronald Reagan's brilliant success in presiding over the collapse of international
Communism has brought us into a world without a clear-cut global ideological or
geopolitical challenge, but in whose stability and progress we have a deep interest, both
because of our values and the interdependence of a global economy. Too much of the
current debate is framed by would-be internationalists who abdicate a specific American role
to a vapid multilateralism or by self-proclaimed moralists whose definition of morality is to
denigrate the core values of our own civilization. Self-righteous isolationism is not the
appropriate counter to these tendencies. As someone often accused of reading Metternich
by candlelight, let me warn against the congenital sin of the Habsburgs, which was always to
fight in the last ditch, never in the first. Let us define a national interest broad enough to be
relevant to a concept of world order, yet sufficiently specific to affirm with pride what

5

1

2

3

C/3

Of course, even as conservatism has gained in the voting booth, many parts of America surely have continued to practice liberalism in most other aspects of our lives. The philosophical improvements in the last 40 years have not arrested the progressive rending of America's social fabric - that no one can deny, least of all in the aftermath of the O.J. Simpson trial. As a result, it has been the melancholy fate of National Review, to see its warnings too often proved right only after the fact. Bill's attitude toward human folly is ~~ patient ~ less like Cassandra than like the Emperor Maximilian of Mexico who, just before he went in front of the firing squad, turned to his Hungarian chef and said, "You thought it would never come to this. You see now that you were wrong."

4

5

same side of the barricades. Whatever our disagreements, I never failed to consider the conservatism of National Review an indispensable and, in its basic approach, an essentially correct strategic analysis of America's role in the world. Neither Bill nor National Review was tempted by fantasies of going it alone or of allowing the rest of the world to sink into a chaos of anarchy and disorder. Their approach was based firmly on a shrewd grasp of international reality, but it was a vital factor in Cold War politics.

For

because when, under the impact of Vietnam, liberals began to turn isolationist and to doubt America's core values, the conservative movement was there to sustain a foreign policy based upon a broad view of America's national interest and an affirmation of

6

7

OCT-13-1995 16:13

KISSINGER ASSOC.

212 759 0042

8

OCT-13-1995 16:13

KISSINGER ASSOC.

212 759 0042 P.04/04

9

TOTAL P.04

they are under siege both at home and internationally. But affirming them is not enough; affirmation must lead to a roadmap of how to get from where we are to where we have never been in managing a world which we can neither dominate nor leave to its own devices.

Some conservative pronouncements on foreign policy create the impression that all that is needed for the walls of Jericho to crumble is to sound the trumpet. Do let us by all means sound the trumpet, but remember, too, that after the forces are rallied a strategy is required for walls to be assailed and indeed to establish priorities for which walls to attack. Foreign policy must serve history; and history is more complex than a slogan.

10

Let me close on a personal note. Bill and Pat's friendship has sustained me humanly, just as National Review has sustained America's faith and honor, at home and abroad, in foreign and domestic policy. Whether Bill disorients me by raising an eyebrow as he did sitting in the front row while I was explaining the virtues of the Shanghai Communique at a press conference, or whether National Review proves it fallibility by castigating me, at the end of the day the equilibrium and purpose of my life owe

11

12

1

journalists who, then as now, were swimming against the tide of their profession. But
across the broad political landscape, in the Republican as well as the Democratic Party,
liberalism was the dominant ideology, either actively or by default. Liberals in fact felt
sure enough to appeal for some vestigial conservatism to emerge from the deep to provide
them with an intellectual challenge - an infallible sign of their confidence that no such
apparition would appear.

Of course, even as conservatism has gained in the voting booth, many parts of
America surely have continued to practice liberalism in most other aspects of our lives.
The philosophical improvements in the last 40 years have not arrested the progressive
riding of America's social fabric - that no one can deny, least of all in the aftermath of the

2

3

America's role in the world. Neither Bill nor National Review was tempted by fantasies of
going it alone or of allowing the rest of the world to sink into a chaos of anarchy and
disorder. Their approach was based firmly on a shrewd grasp of international reality. It
was a vital factor in Cold War politics, because when, under the impact of Vietnam,
liberals began to turn isolationist and to doubt America's core values, the conservative
movement was there to sustain a foreign policy based upon a broad view of America's
national interest and an affirmation of America's principles. In the end that led to the
victory in the Cold War - and to many lesser victories along the way. And it is my
unrepentant view that if we had not suffered Watergate and the election of a Congress
indifferent to the fate of our allies in South Vietnam, we would not have suffered the
humiliating debacle of 1975, nor the subsequent Vietnam Syndrome, nor the follies in
Afghanistan, Angola and Central American to which they led.

4

OCT-13-1995 16:13

KISSINGER ASSOC.

212 759 0042 P.02/04

foreign policy. But the agenda is different from the domestic one. In domestic politics it was sufficient to sweep away the heavy hand of the state and thereby to liberate individual initiative. In foreign policy there is no such automatic mechanism. A strategy must be developed even as cobwebs are removed and this, unlike domestic policy, requires a well-organized and purposeful central authority.

5

made our civilization great: a standard of justice beyond the reach of temporal power, the
concept of individual human dignity, the principle of limited government and the decisive
role of human conscience. These values are at once the hope of mankind, and they are
under siege both at home and internationally. But affirming them is not enough;
affirmation must lead to a roadmap of how to get from where we are to where we have
never been in managing a world which we can neither dominate nor leave to its own
devices.

Some conservative pronouncements on foreign policy create the impression that all
that is needed for the walls of Jericho to crumble is to sound the trumpet. Do let us by all
means sound the trumpet, but remember, too, that after the forces are rallied a strategy is
required for walls to be assailed and indeed to establish priorities for which walls to attack.
Foreign policy must serve history, and history is more complex than a slogan.

6

humanly, just as National Review has sustained America's faith and honor, at home and
abroad, in foreign and domestic policy. Whether Bill disorients me by raising an eyebrow
as he did sitting in the front row while I was explaining the virtues of the Shanghai
Communique at a press conference, or whether National Review proves it fallibility by
castigating me, at the end of the day the equilibrium and purpose of my life owe more than
these words can express to my certainty that when things are really difficult - and I mean
really difficult, as with Leonidas and the 300 Spartans, or as Horatius at the bridge - I
won't have to look around to know that Bill Buckley and National Review will be right
there beside me.

7

2

3

4

5

our civilization great: a standard of justice beyond the reach of temporal power, the
concept of individual human dignity, the principle of limited government and the decisive
role of human conscience. These values are at once the hope of mankind, and
they are under siege both at home and internationally. But affirming them is not enough;
affirmation must lead to a roadmap of how to get from where we are to where we have
never been in managing a world which we can neither dominate nor leave to its own devices.

6

2

3

4

OCT-13-1995 15:56

RIVER HOUSE

P.01

foreign policy. But the agenda is different from the domestic one. In domestic politics it was sufficient to sweep away the heavy hand of the state and thereby to liberate individual initiative. In foreign policy there is no such automatic mechanism. A strategy must be developed even as cobwebs are removed and this, unlike domestic policy, requires a well-organized central authority.

Ronald Reagan's brilliant success in presiding over the collapse of international Communism has brought us into a world without a clear-cut global ideological or geopolitical challenge, but in whose stability and progress we have a deep interest, both because of our values and the interdependence of a global economy. Too much of the current debate is framed by would-be internationalists who abdicate a specific American role to a vapid multilateralism or by self-proclaimed moralists whose definition of morality is to denigrate the core values of our own civilization. The counter to these tendencies is self-righteous isolationism. As someone often accused of reading Metternich by candlelight, let me warn against the congenital sin of the Habsburgs, which was always to fight in the last ditch, never in the first. Let us define a national interest broad enough to be relevant to a concept of world order, yet sufficiently specific to affirm with pride what

5

OCT-13-1995 15:54

97%

TOTAL P.01

P.01

6

7

1

2

3

[Y]

indispensable and, in its basic approach, an essentially correct strategic analysis of America's role in the world. Neither Bill nor National Review was tempted by fantasies of going it alone or of allowing the rest of the world to sink into a chaos of anarchy and disorder. Their approach was based firmly on a shrewd grasp of international reality. It was a vital factor in Cold War politics, because when, under the impact of Vietnam, and doubt America's core values liberals began to turn isolationist, the conservative movement was there to sustain a foreign policy based upon a broad view of America's national interest. In the end that led to the and an affirmation of America's principles, victory in the Cold War - and to many lesser victories along the way. And it is my unrepentant view that if we had not suffered Watergate and the election of a Congress indifferent to the fate of our allies in South Vietnam, we would not have suffered the humiliating debacle of 1975, nor the subsequent Vietnam Syndrome, nor the follies in Afghanistan, Angola and Central American to which they led.

4

was sufficient to sweep away the heavy hand of the state and thereby to liberate individual initiative. In foreign policy there is no such automatic mechanism. A strategy must be developed even as cobwebs are removed, and this requires a well-organized, unlike demوت policy!

central authority.

Communism has brought us into a world without a clear-cut global ideological or geopolitical challenge, but in whose stability and progress we have a deep interest, both because of our values and the interdependence of a global economy. Too much of the current debate is framed by would-be internationalists who abdicate a specific American role to a vapid multilateralism or by self-proclaimed moralists whose definition of morality is to denigrate the core values of our own civilization. The counter to these tendencies is self-righteous isolationism. As someone often accused of reading Metternich by candlelight, let me warn against the congenital sin of the Habsburgs, which was always to fight in the last ditch, never in the first. Let us define a national interest broad enough to be relevant to a concept of world order, yet sufficiently specific to affirm with pride what made our civilization great: a standard of justice beyond the reach of temporal power, the concept of individual human dignity, the principle of limited government and the decisive

5

affirmation must lead to a roadmap of how to get from where we are to where we have
never been in managing a world while we can
not let dominates not let leave to us own days

6

7

1

2

3

America's role in the world. Neither Bill nor National Review was tempted by fantasies of
going it alone or of allowing the rest of the world to sink into a chaos of anarchy and
disorder. Their approach was based firmly on a shrewd grasp of international reality. It
was a vital factor in Cold War politics, because when, under the impact of Vietnam,
liberals began to turn isolationist the conservative movement was there to sustain a foreign
policy based upon a broad view of America's national interest. In the end that led to the
victory in the Cold War - and to many lesser victories along the way. And it is my
unrepentant view that if we had not suffered Watergate and the election of a Congress
indifferent to the fate of our allies in South Vietnam, we would not have suffered the
humiliating debacle of 1975, nor the subsequent Vietnam Syndrome, nor the follies in
Afghanistan, Angola and Central American to which they led.

4

was sufficient to sweep away the heavy hand of the state and thereby to liberate individual initiative. In foreign policy there is no such automatic mechanism. A strategy must be developed even as cobwebs are removed.

Ronald Reagan's brilliant success in presiding over the collapse of international Communism has brought us into a world without a clear-cut global ideological or geopolitical challenge, but in whose stability and progress we have a deep interest, both because of our values and the interdependence of a global economy. Too much of the current debate is framed by would-be internationalists who abdicate a specific American role to a vapid multilateralism or by self-proclaimed moralists whose definition of morality is to denigrate the core values of our own civilization. The counter to these tendencies is not to withdraw into self-righteous isolationism. As someone often accused of reading Metternich by candlelight, let me warn against the congenital sin of the Habsburgs, which was always to fight in the last ditch, never in the first. Let us define a national interest broad enough to be relevant to a concept of world order, yet sufficiently specific to affirm with pride what made our civilization great: a standard of justice beyond the reach of temporal power, the concept of individual human dignity, the principle of limited

5

Sme Conservative on foreign policy sometimes create the impression that all that is
needed for the walls of Jericho to crumble is to sound the trumpet. Do let us all means
sound the trumpet, but remember, too, that after the forces are rallied a strategy is

Foreign policy must serve history, not only the mood of a moment.

Let me close on a personal note. Bill and Pat's friendship has sustained me
humanly, just as National Review has sustained America's faith and honor, at home and
abroad, in foreign and domestic policy. Whether Bill disorients me by raising an eyebrow
as he did sitting in the front row while I was explaining the virtues of the Shanghai
Communique at a press conference, or whether National Review proves it fallibility by
castigating me, at the end of the day the equilibrium and purpose of my life owe so much
to history.

6

When we first met - dare I admit forty years ago - Bill Buckley told me, with an assurance that not even the passage of the decades has managed to enhance, of his plans to create a journal of conservative opinion and to revamp the political center of gravity of our country. The urgency of neither objective was self-evident to me. But then I did not think that much would come of Bill's enterprise.

1

2

3

indispensable and, in its basic approach, an essentially correct strategic analysis based upon

America playing its full role in the world. Neither Bill nor National Review was tempted

anarchy and disorder. This approach was based firmly on a shrewd grasp of international

tell you, if you

use this occasion to place a new task before the conservative movement.

We are in desperate need of an equivalent conservative agenda in foreign policy.

But the agenda is different from the domestic one. In domestic politics it was sufficient to
sweep away the heavy hand of the state and thereby to liberate individual initiative. In
foreign policy there is no such automatic mechanism. A strategy must be developed even
as cobwebs are removed.

Ronald Reagan's brilliant success in presiding over the collapse of international
Communism has brought us into a world without a clear-cut global ideological or
geopolitical challenge, but in whose stability and progress we have a deep interest, both
because of our values and the interdependence of a global economy. Too much of the
current debate is framed by would-be internationalists who abdicate a specific American
role to a vapid multilateralism or by self-proclaimed moralists whose definition of morality
is to denigrate the core values of our own civilization. The counter to these
tendencies is not to withdraw into self-righteous isolationism. As someone often accused
of reading Metternich by candlelight, let me warn against the congenital sin of the
Habsburgs, which was always to fight in the last ditch, never in the first. Let us define a
national interest broad enough to be relevant to a concept of world order, yet sufficiently
specific to affirm with pride what made our civilization great: a standard of justice beyond

5

Conservatives on foreign policy sometimes sound as if all that is needed for the walls of Jericho to crumble ~~automatically~~ is to sound the trumpet. Do let us all means sound the trumpet, but remember, too, that after the forces are rallied a strategy is required for walls to be assailed and indeed to establish priorities for which walls to attack.

Let me close on a personal note. Bill and Pat's friendship has sustained me throughout my life, just as National Review has sustained America's faith and honor, at home and abroad, in foreign and domestic policy. It means so much to the equilibrium ~~one so much to my certainty~~ and purpose of my life ~~to know that when things are really difficult - as Leonidas and the 300 Spartans, or as Horatius at the bridge - I won't have to look around to be certain that~~

When we first met - dare I admit forty years ago - Bill Buckley told me, with an assurance that not even the passage of the decades has managed to enhance, of his plans to create a journal of conservative opinion and to revamp the political center of gravity of our country. The urgency of neither of these objectives was self-evident to me. But then I did not think that much would come of Bill's enterprise.

We celebrate tonight the triumph of faith over Ivy League political correctness; Bill Buckley and National Review have become part of our intellectual landscape as inseparable evangelists for truth and of the preservation of a decent American republic based on conservative principles.

In 1955, when I first encountered Bill's certitudes, American conservatism had no institutional existence. There were

1

3

halted and reversed.

evoking contradiction

At the risk of causing some of you pain, let me affirm that I have always considered these criticisms as family arguments on the same side of the barricades. Whatever our disagreements, I never failed to consider the conservatism of National Review an indelible part of its basic approach essentially serious strategic analysis based upon America playing its full role in the world. Neither Bill nor National Review was tempted by fantasies of going it alone in the quest of allowing the rest of the world to sink into a chaos of anarchy and disorder.

The approach

Conservative opposition to some of my policies, and conservative support for others, was based firmly on a shrewd grasp of international reality. It was a vital factor in Cold

4

CD

Forty years ago, Bill and his colleagues called us to our duty to redefine America's domestic agenda. That task has been brilliantly accomplished. Tonight let me use this occasion to place a new task before the conservative movement.

Ronald Reagan's brilliantly presided over the collapse of Soviet Union, but in pending international Communism. But we lack guideposts for a world

5

without a clear-cut global ideological or geopolitical challenge,
but in whose stability and progress we have a deep interest, both
because of our values and the interdependence of a global
\* economy. Too much of the current debate is framed by would-be
internationalists who abdicate a specific American role to a
vapid multilateralism or by self-proclaimed moralists whose
\* definition of morality is to denigrate the core values of their own civilization. The counter to these tendencies is not to withdraw into self-righteous isolationism. As someone often accused of reading Metternich by candlelight, let me warn against the congenital sin of the Habsburgs, which was always to fight in the last ditch, never in the first. Let us define a national interest broad enough to be relevant to a concept of world order, yet sufficiently specific to affirm with pride what made our civilization great: a standard of justice beyond the reach of temporal power, the concept of individual human dignity, the principle of limited government and the decisive role of human conscience. These values are at once the hope of mankind, and

6

1

LYJ

isolated academic strongholds like the University of Chicago; conservatism could boast of a few distinguished literary and philosophical figures like John Dos Passos and Richard Weaver; and it could call on the talents of some brilliant journalists who, then as now, were swimming against the tide of their profession. But across the broad political landscape, in the Republican as well as the Democratic Party, liberalism was the dominant ideology, either actively or by default. Liberals in fact felt sure enough to call on some vestigial conservatism of character from the deep to provide them with an intellectual challenge - an infallible sign of their confidence that no such apparition would appear.

2

3

EVJ

halted and reversed.

At the risk of causing some of you pain, let me affirm that I have always considered these criticisms as family arguments on the same side of the barricades. Whatever our disagreements, I never failed to consider the conservatism of National Review a serious strategic analysis based upon America playing its full role in the world. Neither Bill nor National Review was tempted by fantasies of going it alone, of allowing the rest of the world to sink into a chaos of anarchy and disorder.

4

Ronald Reagan brilliantly presided over the collapse of international Communism. But we lack guideposts for a world

5

without a clear-cut global ideological or geopolitical challenge,
but in whose stability and progress we have a deep interest, both
because of our values and the interdependence of a global
economy. Too much of the current debate is framed by would-be
internationalists who abdicate a specific American role to a
vapid multilateralism or by self-proclaimed moralists whose
definition of morality is to denigrate the core values of their
own civilization. The counter to these tendencies is not to
withdraw into self-righteous isolationism. As someone often
accused of reading Metternich by candlelight, let me warn against
the congenital sin of the Habsburgs, which was always to fight in
the last ditch, never in the first. Let us define a national
interest broad enough to be relevant to a concept of world order,
yet sufficiently specific to affirm with pride what made our
civilization great: a standard of justice beyond the reach of
temporal power, the concept of individual human dignity, the
principle of limited government and the decisive role of human
conscience. These values are at once the hope of mankind, and

6

Conservatives on foreign policy sometimes sound as if all
that is needed for the walls of Jericho to crumble automatically
is to sound the trumpet. Do let us all means sound the trumpet,
but remember, too, that after the forces are rallied a strategy
is required for walls to be assailed and indeed to establish
priorities for which walls to attack. Foreign policy must serve
history, not only a weak(?) moment.

I have every confidence that the principal conservative
magazine will be a strong, shrewd and principled voice for a
realistic and purposeful American foreign policy.

Let me close on a personal note. Bill and Pat have made my
life worthwhile with their friendship, just as National Review
has sustained America's faith and honor, at home and abroad, in
foreign and domestic policy. It means so much to the equilibrium
and purpose of my life to know when things are difficult, when I
find myself in need of real friends - as Leonidas and the 300
Spartans, or as Horatius at the bridge - I won't have to look

7

OCT-13-1995 07:15

OCT-12-1995 19:30

RIVER HOUSE

KISSINGER ASSOC.

212 133 00042

F.04/00

P.03

I always think of Bill and National Review when I recall the last
tan like
words of the Emperor Maximilian of Mexico who, just before he
went in front of the firing squad, turned to his Hungarian chef
and said, "You thought it would never come to this. You see now
that you were wrong."

Now that conservatism has begun to win Congressional as well
as presidential elections, it is to be hoped that your warnings
will be more effectually heeded and our nation's divisions halted
and reversed.

But I have a particular reason for wanting to thank Bill and
National Review here tonight. And that reason is foreign policy
- a topic on which (let me put this as mildly as I can) I have
not always shared the views of Bill and the magazine. Indeed, I
know that Bill Buckley regarded the Opening to China as the first
symptom of the Closing of the American Mind.

But our disagreements were so painful because I never failed
to consider the conservatism of National Review a serious
strategic analysis based upon America playing its full role in
PAX THE RISK OF CANVISING SOME OF YOUR
PAIN LET ME AFFIRM THAT I TAKE ALWAYS
APPROACH OF THE POINTS AS FAMILIAR
ANNOUNCED IN THE CITERIUMS AS FAMILIAR
AGREEMENTS ON THE SAME VIEWS I TOok PAX THE RISK

OCT-13-1995 07:13

97%

P.03

OCT-13-1995 07:15

RIVER HOUSE

P.04

OCT-12-1995 19:31

KISSINGER ASSOC.

the world. Neither Bill nor National Review was tempted by fantasies of going it alone, of allowing the rest of the world to sink into a chaos of anarchy and disorder. In short, National Review never succumbed to the isolationist temptation.

Conservative opposition to some of my policies, and a conservative support for others, was based firmly on this shrewd grasp of international reality. It was an important factor in Cold War politics, because it meant that, when liberals began to turn isolationist under the impact of Vietnam, the conservative movement was there to sustain a foreign policy based upon a broad view of America's national interest. In the end that led to the victory of the United States in the Cold War - and to many lesser victories along the way. And it is my unrepentant view that if we had not suffered Watergate and the election of a Congress indifferent to the fate of our allies in South Vietnam, we would not have suffered the humiliating debacle of 1975, nor the subsequent Vietnam Syndrome, nor the follies in Afghanistan, Angola and Central American to which it led.

5

OCT-13-1995 07:13

97%

P.04

#1 CYJ

When we first met - dare I admit forty years ago - Bill Buckley told me, with an assurance that not even the passage of the decades has managed to enhance, of his plans to create a journal of conservative opinion and to alter the political center of gravity of our country. The urgency of neither objective was self-evident to me. But then I did not think that much would come of this enterprise.

We celebrate tonight the triumph of Bill's naivety over my political correctness; Bill Buckley and National Review have become part of our intellectual landscape as evangelists for truth and the preservation of a decent American republic based on conservative principles.

I am, of course, delighted to be a guest here tonight, and in particular to be asked to say a few words about two inseparable evangelists for truth, Bill Buckley and National Review. Now everyone who speaks tonight will celebrate, and rightly celebrate, the contribution that both have made to the

1

development of a principled American conservatism and the
preservation of a decent American republic.

The first of those has been an unqualified success. In 1955
when I was a young academic, learning to speak English as well as
I wrote it, American conservatism had no real political
existence. It had some academic strongholds like the University
of Chicago; it could boast some distinguished literary and
philosophical figures like John Dos Passos and Richard Weaver;
and it could call on the talents of some brilliant journalists
who, then as now, were swimming against the tide of their
profession. But across the entire political landscape, in the
Republican Party as well as the Democratic, liberalism - either
active liberalism or liberalism by default - was the dominant
ideology. Even liberals began demanding that conservatism arise
from the vasty deep to provide them with a sort of intellectual
challenge - a sure sign that they were fairly confident that no
such apparition would appear.

But they were wrong. Bill Buckley and National Review

2

emerged athwart history yelling Stop. And so began the process
that has led by degrees to the present dominance of conservatism
in which liberalism is the ideology that dare not speak its name.
It was a remarkable transformation, and many people played a part
in it. But no one - not Barry Goldwater, not Ronald Reagan -
played a greater part than Bill Buckley and the megaphone for
conservatism that he created in National Review.

Of course, Bill has been less successful in preserving
American society from its own follies. As we have increasingly
voted for conservatism in the voting booth, so we have
increasingly lived liberalism in most other aspects of our lives.
While there have been some social improvements in the last 40
years, there has been an overall rending of America's social
fabric that no one can deny, least of all in the aftermath of the
O.J. Simpson trial. All through these years, it has been the
melancholy fate of National Review to see its warnings to often
proved right after the fact. The usual comparison people make in
these cases is with Cassandra. But I think I have a better one.

3

I always think of Bill and National Review when I recall the last
words of the Emperor Maximilian of Mexico who, just before he
went in front of the firing squad, turned to his Hungarian chef
and said, "You thought it would never come to this. You see now
that you were wrong."

4

Conservative opposition to some of my policies, and the
conservative support for others, was based firmly on this shrewd
grasp of international reality. It was an important factor in
Cold War politics. Because it meant that when liberals began to
turn isolationist under the impact of Vietnam, the conservative
movement was there to sustain a foreign policy based upon a broad
view of America's national interest. In the end that led to the
victory of the United States in the Cold War - and to many lesser
victories along the way. And it is my unrepentant view that if
we had not suffered Watergate and the election of a Congress
indifferent to the fate of our allies in South Vietnam, we would
not have suffered the humiliating debacle of 1975, nor the
subsequent Vietnam Syndrome, nor the follies in Afghanistan,
Angola and Central American to which it led.

5

Let me use this occasion to place a new task before the
conservative movement. Forty years ago, Bill and his colleagues
started what turned into a mission for the redefinition of
America's domestic agenda. That task has been brilliantly
accomplished.

But there is not yet an equivalent conservative agenda in
foreign policy. Ronald Reagan brilliantly presided over the
collapse of international Communism. But we lack guideposts for
a world in which there is no clear-cut global ideological or
geopolitical challenge but in whose stability and progress we
have a deep interest, both because of our values and the
interdependence of a global economy. Too much of the current
debate is framed by would-be internationalists who abdicate a
specific American role to a vapid internationalism or by self-
proclaimed moralists whose definition of morality is to blaspheme
the core values of their own civilization. The counter to this
is not to withdraw into a shell or a self-righteous isolationism.
It is to define a national interest broad enough to be relevant

6

to a concept of world order and yet specific enough to affirm
with pride what made our civilization great: a standard of
justice beyond the reach of temporal power, the concept of
individual human dignity, the principle of limited government and
the decisive role of human conscience. These values are under
siege both at home and internationally, and yet they are also the
hope of mankind.

Conservatives dealing with foreign policy sometimes act as
if all that is needed is to sound the trumpet and the walls of
Jericho will crumble automatically. Do by all means sound the
trumpet, but remember, too, that walls need a strategy for being
assailed and that foreign policy must serve history, not only the
moment. That seems to me the next great challenge for American
conservatives.

So when I contemplate our country's future, I reflect with
great confidence that the principal conservative magazine will be
a strong, shrewd and principled voice for a realistic American
foreign policy. Bill and Pat have made having lived worthwhile

7

as friends, and National Review has sustained America's faith and
honor, whether at home or abroad, whether in foreign or domestic
policy, whether I have just been infuriated by something in the
latest issue, or amused, or roused to applause, I know that if
the time ever comes when I find myself in need of real friends,
with Leonidas and the 300 Spartans, or with Horatius at the
bridge, I won't have to look around to know that Bill Buckley and
National Review will be there beside me.

8

300 P04

OCT 10 '95 14:05

CYS

DRAFT - From John O'Sullivan Introd

I am, of course, delighted to be a guest here tonight, and in particular to be asked to say a few words about two inseparable evangelists for truth, Bill Buckley and National Review. Now everyone who speaks tonight will celebrate, and rightly celebrate, the contribution that both have made to the development of a principled American conservatism and the preservation of a decent American republic.

The first of those has been an unqualified success. American conservatism in 1955 was a young academic, learning to speak English as well as I wrote it, had no real political existence. It had some academic strongholds like the University of Chicago; it could boast some distinguished literary and philosophical figures like John Dos Passos and Richard Weaver; and it could call on the talents of some brilliant journalists who, then as now, were swimming against the tide of their profession. But across the entire political landscape, in the Republican Party, as well as the Democratic, liberalism -- either active liberalism or liberalism by default -- was the dominant ideology. Even liberals began demanding that conservatism arise from the vasty deep to provide them with a sort of intellectual challenge -- a sure sign that they were fairly confident that no such apparition would appear.

But they were wrong. Bill Buckley and National Review emerged athwart history yelling Stop. And so began the process that has led by degrees to the present dominance of conservatism in which liberalism is the ideology that dare not speak its name. It was a remarkable transformation, and many people played a part in it. But no one -- not Barry Goldwater, not Ronald Reagan -- played a greater part than Bill Buckley and the megaphone for conservatism that he created in National Review.

Of course, Bill has been less successful in preserving American society from its own follies. As we have increasingly voted for conservatism in the voting booth, so we have increasingly lived liberalism in most other aspects of our lives. While there have been some social improvements in the last 40 years, there has been an overall rending of America's social fabric that no one can deny, least of all only ten days after the verdict in the O.J. Simpson trial. All through these years, it has been the melancholy fate of National Review to see its warnings ignored and then proved right after the fact. The usual comparison people make in these cases is with Cassandra. But I think I have a better one. I always think of Bill and National Review when I recall the last words of the Emperor Maximilan of Mexico who, just before he went in front of the firing squad, turned to his Hungarian chef and said, "You thought it would never come to this. You see now that you were wrong."

300 P05

OCT 10 '95 14:05

CY3

One can only hope that conservatism has begun to win Congressional as well as presidential elections, that your warnings will be more effectually heeded and our nation's social decline halted and reversed.

But I have a particular reason for wanting to thank Bill and National Review here tonight. And that reason is foreign policy -- a topic on which (let me put this as mildly as I can) I have not always been in complete agreement with Bill and the magazine. Indeed, I know that Bill Buckley regarded my Opening to China as the first symptom of the Closing of the American Mind.

But throughout all our disagreements I was always able to recognize in the conservatism of National Review a serious strategic analysis based upon America playing its full role in the world. Neither Bill nor National Review was tempted by fantasies of going it alone, of allowing the rest of the world to sink into a chaos of anarchy and disorder. In short, National Review never succumbed to the isolationist temptation.

Admittedly, Bill had been an early member of America First -- but he was only an enfant terrible at the time. (You see why they call French the language of diplomacy.)

I was grateful that the conservative opposition to some of my policies, and the conservative support for others, was based firmly on this shrewd grasp of international reality. It was an important factor in Cold War politics. Because it meant that when liberals began to turn isolationist under the impact of Vietnam, the conservative movement was there to sustain a foreign policy based upon a broad view of America's national interest. In the end that led to the victory of the United States in the Cold War -- and to many lesser victories along the way. And it is my unrepentant view that if we had not suffered Watergate and the election of a Congress indifferent to the fate of our allies in South Vietnam, we would not have suffered the humiliating debacle of 1975, nor the subsequent Vietnam Syndrome, nor the follies in Afghanistan, Angola and Central America to which it led.

What was true for the recent past is still true for the present. What we now need is a foreign policy built upon America playing its full role in the world and pursuing a broad view of its national interest. Yet the conservative movement, along with the rest of America, is again tempted by the false promises of a new isolationism. If I can put in a single phrase what is wrong with such a policy, I would quote a criticism of the Hapsburgs: "They always fought in the last ditch, never in the first."

So it is a great relief to me, when I contemplate our country's future, to reflect that the principal conservative magazine will be a strong, shrewd and principled voice for a realistic American foreign policy. Indeed, let me go further: whether at home or abroad, whether in foreign or domestic policy, whether I have just been infuriated by something