criterionforum.org

Farewell My Crypto-Nazi

domino harvey wrote:Farewell My Crypto-Nazi

I predict Gore Vidal's dance with death won't be far off. I doubt he'll outlive the Bush presidency, especially since they pretty much put the last nails in the coffin of what he saw as a great republic.

I found Buckley to be the politcal creep par excellence, but I feel quite sad at his passing, as he knew his own mind and was always clear in laying out his views and arguments. The "crypto-Nazi" fight with Bore Vidal is one of the unsurpassable moments in the television pantheon. But I love Buckley's retort: "Now listen, you queer, you stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I'll sock you in the goddamn face and you'll stay plastered." Pure gold.

His mass-debate with Chomsky is also awesome. And he was for the legalisation of cannabis. He wasn't as much of a cunt as most people make out, I reckon.

Person wrote:His mass-debate with Chomsky is also awesome. And he was for the legalisation of cannabis. He wasn't as much of a cunt as most people make out, I reckon.

Ah, now I know where I'd seen him before. I'm afraid I found him insufferably smug in his Chomsky debate, but I agree that debate is fascinating to watch - mainly to see someone flailing around with rhetoric in an attempt to bewilder but coming up against another person who is able to respond cogently to them! A brilliant example of two minds clashing though!

I'd rather Buckley still be around than Jonah Goldberg, Rush, Ann Coulter, etc. etc.

tavernier wrote:I'd rather Buckley still be around than Jonah Goldberg, Rush, Ann Coulter, etc. etc.

It seems that he was an early example of that showboating rhetoric over content style though?

colinr0380 wrote:

tavernier wrote:I'd rather Buckley still be around than Jonah Goldberg, Rush, Ann Coulter, etc. etc.

It seems that he was an early example of that showboating rhetoric over content style though?

He did have the showboating style, but from Buckley to that trio is a long way down.

Person wrote:I found Buckley to be the politcal creep par excellence, but I feel quite sad at his passing, as he knew his own mind and was always clear in laying out his views and arguments. The "crypto-Nazi" fight with Bore Vidal is one of the unsurpassable moments in the television pantheon. But I love Buckley's retort: "Now listen, you queer, you stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I'll sock you in the goddamn face and you'll stay plastered." Pure gold.

His mass-debate with Chomsky is also awesome. And he was for the legalisation of cannabis. He wasn't as much of a cunt as most people make out, I reckon.

Being right one percent of the time doesn't make one not a cunt.

His blustering threat to Vidal revealed what thug he was at heart, completely incapable of going toe-to-toe with his considerably brighter, wittier, and more humane rival. While he was more articulate than most conservatives, he was still an intellectual lightweight. He may look like a genius next to today's prominent rightwingers like W., Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Coulter, but let's not overestimate him.

Donald Brown wrote:His blustering threat to Vidal revealed what thug he was at heart,

Oh, come on. You pretend as though he weren't goaded into it by a cheap tho' severe insult, and one done while tempers were already flaring high. Buckley may indeed be all of the things you say, but your example proves none of them.

Is pointing out the obvious cheap and severe? Everything Vidal said of Buckley during that exchange and elsewhere is completely true, and thank goodness he did so. It had needed to be said in so public a fashion for some time. This one example may prove little, but it's in keeping with Buckley's character. Even a cursory look at the man's writing and speaking reveal what a blow-hard and a bigot he was, as contemptuous of democracy and civil liberties as anyone of the era. His role was to champion and preserve the absolute power of the privileged few over the many, something he did with relish and without reservation. His slight mellowing in his dotage did nothing rehabilitate him.

Neither the Chomsky debate nor the Vidal incident provides adequate material for a William F. Buckley eulogy.
Colinr0380 is right in noting that that Buckley was "flailing around with rhetoric" in an attempt to unsuccessfully counter Chomsky, and I've spent a lifetime watching Gore Vidal arch his eyebrows and take nasty little swipes at people; so picking sides on that one is a useless undertaking, except to view it as entertainment of the highest (or is it lowest?) sort.

Speaking of entertainment - isn't this what we have lost with his passing?
"Firing Line" consisted entirely of very smart people discussing important subjects in an articulate and often witty manor. I actually videotaped many of those shows back in the day because they were the most involving and "exciting" things happening on television. The Chomsky debate is not really typical; Buckley generally gave his guests ample opportunity without interruption to make their case.

I am not a conservative and I never agreed with Buckley on most issues. But, I love being challenged, and his guests and his viewers had to think fast to keep up with the intriguing logic of his questions. Buckley didn't lean in to his guests the way Charlie Rose does, he kept his distance, sucked on his pen, and dared the guest to respond with the same knowledge and wit with which Buckley framed the question.

All that is now lost. No one even attempts it anymore. No one can.

Donald Brown wrote:Is pointing out the obvious cheap and severe? Everything Vidal said of Buckley during that exchange and elsewhere is completely true, and thank goodness he did so. It had needed to be said in so public a fashion for some time. This one example may prove little, but it's in keeping with Buckley's character. Even a cursory look at the man's writing and speaking reveal what a blow-hard and a bigot he was, as contemptuous of democracy and civil liberties as anyone of the era. His role was to champion and preserve the absolute power of the privileged few over the many, something he did with relish and without reservation. His slight mellowing in his dotage did nothing rehabilitate him.

Now that you have definitively shown your lack of disinterest on the matter, I find there is no longer anything I wish to say.

Yes, do slink away with that pitiful cop-out. It can only be seen as concession of your ignorance on the matter and that have no counterargument.

Please find a video or transcription of the debate and you'll clearly see it was Buckley's petulance and constant churlish interruptions of Vidal that provoked Vidal's crypto-Nazi comment, and sent the level of the conversation down the tubes. See also Buckley's similarly boorish treatment of Noam Chomsky during their debate.

Donald Brown wrote:Yes, do slink away with that pitiful cop-out. It can only be seen as concession of your ignorance on the matter and that have no counterargument.

I guess this is where I should threaten to hit you so you'll stay plastered?

Seriously, tho', you had and still have no argument. There is only your bias to argue with, and why would I waste my time with that?

Donald Brown wrote:Please find a video or transcription of the debate and you'll clearly see it was Buckley's petulance and constant churlish interruptions of Vidal that provoked Vidal's crypto-Nazi comment, and sent the level of the conversation down the tubes. See also Buckley's similarly boorish treatment of Noam Chomsky during their debate.

I can only take this as a concession to my point that Buckley's comment alone does not, cannot, prove your assertions. Hence the list of further evidence.

Belmondo wrote:Speaking of entertainment - isn't this what we have lost with his passing?
"Firing Line" consisted entirely of very smart people discussing important subjects in an articulate and often witty manor. I actually videotaped many of those shows back in the day because they were the most involving and "exciting" things happening on television. The Chomsky debate is not really typical; Buckley generally gave his guests ample opportunity without interruption to make their case.

I wouldn't say we've lost any entertainment, but I watched "Firing Line" constantly and appreciate that Buckley would indeed extend time to those with opposing views. He still acted like a smug dick much of the time. Again, not a Limbaughian or O'Reillyian level of dickishness, but it was ugly all the same.

Mr_sausage wrote:I can only take this as a concession to my point that Buckley's comment alone does not, cannot, prove your assertions. Hence the list of further evidence.

Do you not think it made him look like a thug? But of course this one incident by itself proves nothing. Anyone can have an off day and say something stupid, but taken along with his other written and spoken words over his lifetime, it shows him to be an ugly man. Are you seriously contending otherwise? I never contended that this one incident was enough to convict Buckley of anything, so what's your point? You seem to making much ado about nothing.

Donald Brown wrote:

Mr_sausage wrote:I can only take this as a concession to my point that Buckley's comment alone does not, cannot, prove your assertions. Hence the list of further evidence.

Do you not think it made him look like a thug? But of course this one incident by itself proves nothing. Anyone can have an off day and say something stupid, but taken along with his other written and spoken words over his lifetime, it shows him to be an ugly man. Are you seriously contending otherwise?

The answer to your question is found somewhere up the page: "Buckley may indeed be all of the things you say, but your example proves none of them."

Donald Brown wrote:I never contended that this one incident was enough to convict Buckley of anything, so what's your point?

Yes you did:

Donald Brown earlier wrote:His blustering threat to Vidal revealed what thug he was at heart,

That clearly states that, given nothing else, his threat alone reveals his thuggery. Else it should have said "further demonstrates," or something to that effect.

Donald Brown wrote:You seem to making much ado about nothing.

Yes, probably, but one can't help these thing.

I see a Hal Holbrook-esque future for M. Sausage, his Buckley impersonation in this thread is first-rate!

domino harvey wrote:I see a Hal Holbrook-esque future for M. Sausage, his Buckley impersonation in this thread is first-rate!

Slumming it a bit with our jokes today, aren't we Domino?

Mr_sausage wrote:Slumming it a bit with our jokes today, aren't we Domino?

*He says in a highly accented voice, pen pressed against his lips and a quick smug little wink and grin at "aren't we Domino"*

William Buckley wrote:The central question that emerges . . . 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 prevail numerically? The sobering answer is Yes — the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists.

So what have we established:

Buckley may have been a crypto-nazi, but he was our favorite crypto-nazi

Him and his show are still worth all the Limbaughs, O'Reilly, and Coulters in the world

You gotta love Vidal's smile as he gets threatened.

Chomsky pwned him

Politics and Criterionforum just don't mix.

Cold Bishop wrote:Politics and Criterionforum just don't mix.

That is the problem with politics - in the end it always drags you back down into the dirt with it!

Belmondo wrote:Speaking of entertainment - isn't this what we have lost with his passing?
"Firing Line" consisted entirely of very smart people discussing important subjects in an articulate and often witty manor. I actually videotaped many of those shows back in the day because they were the most involving and "exciting" things happening on television. The Chomsky debate is not really typical; Buckley generally gave his guests ample opportunity without interruption to make their case.

I am not a conservative and I never agreed with Buckley on most issues. But, I love being challenged, and his guests and his viewers had to think fast to keep up with the intriguing logic of his questions. Buckley didn't lean in to his guests the way Charlie Rose does, he kept his distance, sucked on his pen, and dared the guest to respond with the same knowledge and wit with which Buckley framed the question.

All that is now lost. No one even attempts it anymore. No one can.

I am glad to hear that - I got the impression from the Chomsky debate that Buckley was so confrontational as he was already intimidated rather than feeling superior enough to 'dare' Chomsky to respond to him (I guess that could be seen as a compliment!)

Something I have wondered, and I guess the obituary thread is completely the wrong one to bring it up in(!), is whether the beginning of the change to personality politics, where the issues and debate of them became less important than saying the right thing and throwing out the zinger comments or veiled insults, was caused by certain positions simply being untenable? So a certain defeat in a debate on the facts can be transformed into a win if you manage to gloss over that and win the (maybe only half-listening anyway) audience over with speechifying?

I often find that these kind of debates can work if, ideally, both people are able to exchange ideas in a respectful manner. The current situation I find however seems to favour one party being extremely aggressive (or to put a positive spin on it, being assertive!) - whether that is Buckley or the BBC's Jeremy Paxman. Sadly this approach seems to work in attracting the audience, as dry chat starts crackling with the tension of wondering when one of the debators will lunge across the desk to try to punch the other in the mouth! Sometimes that aggressive approach can work if the other party either passively puts their point of view forward or, as in the Chomsky debate, is able to put forward a robust response without getting personally offended (one of the principles of the aggressive approach seems to be to goad someone into an emotional response and then act personally offended if they then respond in kind).

When debates do not work or break down into Buckley-Vidal name calling it is usually because you have two people with aggressive styles of debating both pissing each other off! It can be quite funny to watch (this is usually the only way aggressive interviewers meet their match), but it is usually at the expense of any kind of coherent argument or audience respect for either party!

That is why I would agree with Belmondo (and tavernier) in the pining for the days of real (adult?) debate. Getting challenged on an issue can often help you understand your own thinking better to defend yourself. Plus trying to understand where the other side is coming from lets you look at an issue from a different perspective, even if you end up still believing what you originally did. I often try to use that stance on this forum - if someone writes something negative on a film I love I try not to get personally offended but instead use that as a spur to get me to seriously think about what I find worthwhile about the film and to try and formulate some sort of counter argument (or at least a passionate defence of my position!)

Having stated my case for the defence, I shall now lean back in my upholstered armchair, press send and smugly tap my pen to my mouth in a knowing fashion.

(Unfortunately I forgot it had a leak and now have blue biro all over my face! #-o )

RIP, Sofiko Chiaureli!

What a bizarre bit of timing - only last November I recognised her in Mariya Saakyan's film Lighthouse, which was the first time I'd thought of her in years, and the first time ever that I'd seen her in a non-Paradjanov context.

RIP, indeed.