William F. Buckley, a notably outspoken political conservative, is cherished today in the conservative pantheon. Having spent a summer within the ranks of a conservative think tank while deciphering my own political ideology, I learned first hand the Canon of the Right: Frederich Bastiat, F.A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, Henry Hazlett, and yes—William F. Buckley.
Perniciously articulate, Mr. Buckley had a knack for effortlessly turning a personal belief into an eloquently stated and withering criticism of Liberalism—as he called it. To this day, Buckley is seen as an intellectual hero of the twentieth century conservative movement and continues to galvanize the intelligentsia of the political right against the encroachment of a nationally progressive politic.
At the surface, Buckley comes across as one with conviction, calculation, and a dedication to rhetorical flair that is, admittedly, enjoyable to watch at times. Yet, lurking beneath the surface is a dark beast of a philosophy. In one paragraph, Mr. Buckley summed up his most fervent ideals and it reads as follows:
I will not cede more power to the state. I will not willingly cede more power to anyone, not to the state, not to General Motors, not to the CIO. I will hoard my power like a miser, resisting every effort to drain it away from me. I will then use my power, as I see fit. I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth. That is a program of sorts, is it not? It is certainly program enough to keep conservatives busy, and liberals at bay. And the nation free.
This statement is the smoking gun of why conservatism will ultimately fail while unabashedly declaring Mr. Buckley’s privilege. As a white and presumably straight male, he clearly says he has no intent of sharing the power he may possess—and that he will use it however he sees fit. Furthermore, he removes personal responsibility to any living human being by relegating his accountability to dead relatives and an invisible deity rather than to—as most conservatives seem to hold—the sacredness of democracy and its exercise. And if this is not enough, he declares this philosophy as the “conservative program” designed to collect power in the hands of the already privileged.
To be fair, one must also admit this “conservative program” has, to a large extent, kept “liberals at bay.” “How so?” you may ask. I will tell you.
Conservatives have spent millions of dollars to hone and condense their messaging into a few key pillars of political philosophy. What is more, conservatives stick to their message and are incredibly effective—thanks to the insidious intellectual dictatorship of the Koch family at the helm—at appearing unified.
On the other hand, progressives get twenty-first century living. We understand the wide range of nuanced issues that face humanity today. It could be said progressives see a wider spectrum of moral colour than do black-and-white conservatives. Because of this gift of nuance, progressives are easily bogged down by the overwhelming nature of our collective crusades for justice, peace, and freedom. And while we are feverishly running around launching civil rights movements, protesting violence, murder, and war, and chaining ourselves to trees because we so passionately believe in the earthy sacredness of nature, conservatives smirk and continue the maniacal process of gobbling up power, money, and resources—because they can and they will.
President Obama has valiantly tried to reframe the debate in favor of progressivism but has largely failed due to the invasive power of Red Money. Corporate interest has violently throttled American democracy and has left Her bruised, bloodied, and beaten down into the dirt of opportunity deficits and disenfranchisement.
William F. Buckley insisted on ceding his power to no person—jealously guarding it for himself. As the conservative program can attest in 2013, this philosophy is actively creating an ever-widening gap between the “haves” and the “have-nots” and steadily accruing all political capital and influence in the hands of a few hundred wealthy, predominantly white, men. My friends, if progressives do not wake up and BOLDLY reclaim the conversation about the twenty-first century, we will find ourselves in the middle of a dystopian, Ayn Randian, corporate oligarchy that mirrors the feudalism of the Dark Ages.
Work must begin to reclaim words from conservatives. Words such as “freedom,” “patriotism,” “opportunity,” “pro-life,” “big government,” “environmentalism,” and “taxes” must not remain in the hands of individuals like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh to define and wield as a sword against, dare I say, a Progressive Program.
I have seen the other side of the coin and experienced first-hand the cold austerity and intellectual callousness of the conservative movement—and I will never go back to that place. I will boldly declare where many will not, “Mr. Buckley, I reject your notion of a conservative program and proudly stand in its shadow as a fiery progressive!”
William F. Buckley may have won the twentieth century—but he will not have the twenty-first.
It is dawn for a new Progressive Mandate.
End Note: This piece is the first of a series that will examine the vibrancy of the progressive movement, sculpt images of what our future could be, and attempt to reframe words jealously guarded and flaunted by conservatives. The premise behind this series is simple: If we are to flourish and lead in this century, we must prepare ourselves accordingly.
COMING SOON
Next in this series: Conservatism Unmasked: Words. It’s How Conservatives Win.
