E!! The True Conservative Story™

Kathleen Parker chimed in on the Christopher Buckley thing.  A very well written piece, and I agree with much (though not all) of it.

Let me be clear that I have no issue with Buckley’s complaints against and dissatisfaction with the Republican party.  In these things I agree with him and am similarly disgruntled.

My criticism was not of the fact that Buckley left National Review; it was the way he left.

And, though his vote is his own, I don’t think it makes sense to show your disgust for the lack of conservatism in the GOP by voting for the candidate/party who has even less of it.

UPDATE:  As for the “shunning” of conservatives like Buckley, I have to agree with what Rich Lowry said just a bit ago, mentioning both Kathleen and Peggy Noonan:

In her Palin-centered column, Peggy says those “whose thoughts lead them to criticism in this area are to be shunned, and accused of the lowest motives,” and then cites Christopher’s resignation from his NR column as an example. Peggy is a busy person, so I suppose she hasn’t had time to notice that Kathleen Parker’s columns ripping Sarah Palin have appeared on NRO. That David Frum has aired his discontent with the Palin pick on NRO. That others of us—Ramesh and even me (between my occasional bouts of rhapsodic gushing!)—have criticized aspects of her performance. And that other writers on NRO have stuck up for Palin and pushed back against the critics. It’s called debate.

Now, I regret how some conservatives immediately question the motives of the critics of Palin, but it’s equally regrettable that Noonan, Parker et al are portraying most conservatives as irrational thugs. It makes you wonder: Who is really being overly emotional and deeply unfair in this intra-mural conservative debate? Which brings us naturally to Kathleen Parker’s column today. Read and judge for yourself. Is this calm, cool deliberation? Or hyperbole worthy of a peeved e-mailer? (By the way, I hate that Kathleen got any abusive e-mails at all; it’s a very unfortunate part of the world of the web. But hate e-mail goes both ways. I wouldn’t want to live for a minute with, say, Kathryn Lopez’s or Jonah Goldberg’s in-box on any given day.)

Finally, on Christopher, I already addressed it here. But he proffered a “sincere offer” of resignation of his column that he had taken up temporarily while Mark Steyn was on hiatus. It struck us as a win-win: Chris would get out of a column we thought he wanted out of; we’d get Mark Steyn, who had recently returned to writing, back on our back page. We never imagined Chris would feel he’d been “fatwa-ed.” In any case, Chris is still on NR’s board, and is welcome to write pieces for us going forward, which I’m hoping he’ll do after everyone, very much including the Noonans and Parkers of the world, takes a deep breath.

And BTW, I posted on what Peggy Noonan said earlier over at Culture11’s LadyBlog.

For more on the Christopher Buckley thing, here’s his latest post, and Rich’s note on The Corner yesterday.  (Don’t miss the part where Buckley changed the header of his post from the patently dishonest “I Was Fired” to the fully accurate ”Buckley Bows Out”)

Here’s my three cents:

(1)  Those who cancelled their subscription to National Review over this matter are being silly. The magazine’s value is not negated by what any one contributor (or ex-contributor) does or says on any one day. NR is more than a great conservative political journal; it his an American Icon. You’d no more stop reading it than you’d swear off apple pie and ice cream.

(2)  It appears that Christopher Buckley is exaggerating all over himself in an effort to create a stir and invite publicity as he breaks away into his brave new world.

What does Christopher mean by saying that Rich Lowry “rather briskly” accepted his resignation and that he is saddened by the “disavowal”?

Does he mean there was not a satisfactorily lengthy pause preceding Rich’s agreement to his departure?  Was Christopher’s ego disappointed at not receiving the expected number of murmured regrets and “it’s a damn shame”s?

Or did he think, as I suspect, that his resignation would not be accepted?  Was the act more a gesture than a genuine offer, and is he now in a snit because Rich and Jack Fowler had the ill manners to take him at his word?

Regardless, to say there was/is “acrimony” on the part of NR is surely going too far. I’ve seen nothing but friendship and warmth extended Buckley’s way from everyone at NR and on The Corner, so the insinuation that there is an air of rancor and animosity feels like Complete and Utter Nonsense.

(3)  There is much more that could be said in re: to Christopher’s comments about WFB’s occasional support of liberal Democrats (all far better men than Obama appears to be), rigorous standards of candor (which Junior seems to be lacking), and independence of thought and action (which were genuine and never for show).

But, it is all well known. WFB was a singular man. He was always himself, and never embarrassed or dishonored his friends (or even his enemies) by being small of heart or deed.

The son does not honor the father with all this elaborate and unpleasant flailing around.  A graceful exit would have been a more fitting tribute to the man we all loved…and miss terribly in these difficult days.

(UPDATE: Anne of Idaho, who is reading D.H. Lawrence, sends an unrelated yet serendipitous quote.

“And he began to feel, coldly and cynically, that among all her distress there was a luxuriating in the violent emotions of the scene in hand, and the situation altogether.”

Re-stated: Christopher Buckley is being a drama queen, and it is causing me to feel more indifferent to his plight than I otherwise might.)

Written Friday night, soon after scanning the latest polls and reading that Chris Buckley is casting a vote for Obama:

Rich ~ I ask your indulgence with this entire email.  I know we don’t know one another and that a handful of emails from me to you over the years, and you occasionally responding “thanks,” don’t really justify what is to follow.

But, you are the editor of National Review, and tonight I am a distraught conservative, so here it is:

I got tears in my eyes reading Chris Buckley’s whole post.

Chris seems cheerful enough about all this, so it’s not for him I cry. His dear father is no doubt quite content (and causing some kind of harmless mischief) in the great Hereafter, so no need for tears there.

I feel a sense of grief and loss; what is it…?

Chris Buckley is wrong; of that I am sure; but still it feels sad.

It seems to me that the splintering of the conservative movement, and its mixed political fortunes, and a sort of crisis of identity, have led us here. Fractured, floundering, weak, perhaps conservatism no longer knows what It is and so cannot inspire and compel as it once did. (I am so tired of talk of the Big Tent…)

It seems to me attempts at fusionism have (so far) failed: if McCain is the prototype and/or product, surely we must admit that? Chris Buckley admits it, with gusto: he now throws his hat in the ring for the uber-liberal senator from Illinois, saying Obama is preferable to the inauthentic and often unconservative McCain.

Is Obama to be elected and are we conservatives to be banished to the fringe, then, as we once were? For decades the establishment ignored us. Only because of Bill Buckley and then with Reagan did history really take note.

But what principle, what policy, what politician, what philosopher will unite us now?

From 1944 to 1991 we were held together by the glue of anticommunism. Barry Goldwater tried to carry the torch onward; Frank Meyer’s fusionism attempted the same and seems to live on in the postmodern pursuit of authenticity through freedom and virtue.

But. An inclusive doctrine – which conservatism has become – though seemingly practical, can lend itself to problems. Indeed, can anyone deny that we have landed ourselves in quite a spot?

When someone like Chris Buckely throws all hierarchies out the proverbial window and says he is voting for Obama, what then?

Has the postwar conservative intellectual movement lost its way; will it now become unrecognizable?

What has become of American conservatism?