For those who don't know, the magazine National Review was founded in 1955, largely due to William F. Buckley Jr's efforts. By 1965 or so (if not sooner), it had successfully consolidated its position as the clearest, most visible and authentic voice of contemporary American conservatism, and held that status for many years. (Some would argue "NR" still holds that status today, although they should keep in mind that Buckley himself publicly declared about 5 years ago that he had "grown distant" from it).

NR's February 7th issue (it has a picture of Reagan on the cover) includes a very lengthy article beginning on p. 39 by Jason Lee Steorts. Titled "Two Views of Marriage", the main point of the article is buried under several thick layers of "$10-words" and academic-style phrasing, but it gradually emerges that the author is in favor of legally recognizing homo-relationships as marriages. The author is NR's Managing Editor, and possibly, the decision to publish his article was a personal courtesy in light of his role at the magazine. Even so, I think this marks a significant turning-point in NR's history. The idea of such an article appearing so long as Buckley was Editor-in-Chief -- and for several years thereafter -- is just point-blank absurd. It would not even have been remotely considered.

Buckley was anti-Ayn Rand and anti-Goldwater. F*** him and his gamesmanship approach to politics.

Buckley very supportive of Goldwater, arguably Goldwater's most visible and outspoken supporter in the New-York-based media. It is not too much to say that without National Review's editorial support, Goldwater would probably have never gotten the GOP presidential nomination. This is especially important in view of the claim that Buckley had a "gamesmanship approach to politics." If that were true, there were several "safer bets" Buckley could have made than supporting Goldwater, who was viewed by the liberals and media in almost exactly the same light that Sarah Palin is viewed today.

Ayn Rand has some interesting things to say that conservatives (and non-conservatives, too) should carefully consider. However, her militant atheism -- which frequently bled into a belligerent animosity not just to all organized religion but to the very idea of God in the first place -- is something that has always been a social outlier in American society. Buckley's opposition to her was fairly representative of (ballpark guess here) about 98% of self-styled "conservatives" in the US during the 60s and 70s.

Buckley was lukewarm on Goldwater for President, and that turned to outright hostility towards much of the rest of his tenure in the Senate. In came the social conservatives to **** up the Republican Party, to the cheers of Buckley and chagrin of Goldwater and myself. That went all the way up to the last major battle of Barry's career where he helped see Sandra Day O'Connor appointed to the Supreme Court. *Gasp* ... Sandra wasn't 100% pro-life from conception and hostile about it. The National Review didn't like O'Connor very much. Despite having a too narrow focus often, O'Connor was solidly with Rehnquist and Thomas in her votes most of her career.

(02-07-2011 09:48 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Buckley was lukewarm on Goldwater for President, and that turned to outright hostility towards much of the rest of his tenure in the Senate.

I can't quite believe you have actually posted that sentence. It almost makes me wonder if you are getting Buckley confused with someone else. Anyway, the historical record is still so recent, so widely known, and so readily accessible through the internet and traditional media that I won't bother to refute it.

Quote:In came the social conservatives to **** up the Republican Party, to the cheers of Buckley and chagrin of Goldwater and myself.

First off, this is an entirely separate question from your original claim that William F. Buckley was "anti-Goldwater."

There is Some truth to this comment, although it is quite exaggerrated with respect to Goldwater, who publicly accepted the support of Arizona Right to Life in both his 1974 and 1980 elections. Even though 1980 was a landslide year for the Republican Party in Arizona and across America, Goldwater himself just barely won his final term in office and the support of the "social conservatives" was crucial in pushing him over the finish line. But the larger reality here is that the "social conservatives" had always been supporting him since he emerged on the national stage in the late '50s. And he had never shied away from accepting their support and championing the issues that were important to them at that point in time. Obviously, abortion itself became a national issue only in 1973, after Goldwater's career was already well-established, but that's not the fault of either Goldwater or "social conservatives".

Quote:That went all the way up to the last major battle of Barry's career where he helped see Sandra Day O'Connor appointed to the Supreme Court. *Gasp* ... Sandra wasn't 100% pro-life from conception and hostile about it.

Again, we are getting rather far afield from the original "Buckley was anti-Goldwater" comment. But just for the record, O'Connor was confirmed by the Senate 99-0. All of the "social conservatives" (about 25-30, give or take) voted in her favor, with one (1) abstention. I do not honestly remember what public comment Buckley made about the O'Connor nomination, although unless someone can show me where he opposed it, I will remain convinced that he supported it.

Quote:The National Review didn't like O'Connor very much. Despite having a too narrow focus often, O'Connor was solidly with Rehnquist and Thomas in her votes most of her career.

Yes, O'Connor voted with the other conservatives on the SC "most of" the time. And accordingly, the National Review of that era (1981-2005) supported her jurisprudence "most of the time" as well.

(02-07-2011 09:48 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  In came the social conservatives to **** up the Republican Party,

Amazingly naiive. And resoundlingly wrong.

(02-08-2011 08:16 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-07-2011 09:48 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  In came the social conservatives to **** up the Republican Party,

Amazingly naiive. And resoundlingly wrong.

I agree. Social liberal and fiscal conservative is generally labeled as libertarian. They're not working out too well as a party. I'm not that much of a social conservative, but if they Republicans ever did as GTS or Boortz advise and cast them aside, good luck ever winning an election.

Find common ground. There are social conservatives that vote their pocketbooks over social issues.

It's the social conservatives who were NOT fiscally conservative who ****** up the republican party. Like Shrub and Cheney and the other neocons.

(02-08-2011 08:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  It's the social conservatives who were NOT fiscally conservative who ****** up the republican party. Like Shrub and Cheney and the other neocons.

Maybe so. That's a very complicated situation. Almost everyone liked the idea of "compassionate conservative" when it first came out...but there reasons varied.

I think many social conservatives thought it an opportunity to put in place legitimate, reasonable, sustainable social services, that would allow people to "sink or swim" by their own choice.

The MSM saw it as an opportunity to throw darts at and undermine every decision. In the end, you sell papers w/ problems, not solutions. So, they worked this to their own ends.

In the end, the Bush policies (along w/ many state and local efforts) have almost all the negatives w/ only a few of the positives.

Say what you will about "social conservatives." Love 'em, hate 'em, ignore 'em, whatever...

Overall, social conservatives are more fiscally conservative than social liberals. Can you find individual exceptions to that rule in a nation of 300+ million people? Of course. But the general rule still applies.

People whose primary political concern is for fiscal issues would find far more of their agenda coming to fruition if they aligned with social conservatives instead of social liberals. Anyone who denies this either doesn't know what's going on, or else hopes that you don't.

(02-08-2011 11:10 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Overall, social conservatives are more fiscally conservative than social liberals. Can you find individual exceptions to that rule in a nation of 300+ million people? Of course. But the general rule still applies.

I'm not seeing the correlation.

(02-08-2011 11:10 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Say what you will about "social conservatives." Love 'em, hate 'em, ignore 'em, whatever...

Overall, social conservatives are more fiscally conservative than social liberals. Can you find individual exceptions to that rule in a nation of 300+ million people? Of course. But the general rule still applies.

People whose primary political concern is for fiscal issues would find far more of their agenda coming to fruition if they aligned with social conservatives instead of social liberals. Anyone who denies this either doesn't know what's going on, or else hopes that you don't.

We agree.

(02-08-2011 11:13 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-08-2011 11:10 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Overall, social conservatives are more fiscally conservative than social liberals. Can you find individual exceptions to that rule in a nation of 300+ million people? Of course. But the general rule still applies.

I'm not seeing the correlation.

I guess what I was trying to say is that, as a general rule, "social-conservatives", as a group, are more fiscally conservative than "social-liberals", as a group. At the same time, I do not doubt that there are some individual exceptions to the general rule.