Posted by
Michael on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 6:24:56 AM

It's been said by the like of Mark Steyn
that William F. Buckley was instrumental in ridding American
conservatism of the likes of racists, isolationists and reactionaries.
I tended to swallow that pill as I lean right and haven't lived through
the 1960s and 70s to see the political transitions for myself. From a
little bit of my own research, I'm beginning to doubt that Buckley was
always the source of progression he's made out to be.
There was a letter in the San Francisco Examiner
today that attacked Buckley's legacy. It cited a piece by Buckley
entitled "Why The South Must Prevail" from the late 1950s. Here is the
letter in question, written by a Ted Uberoi:
Contrary
to the media's gushing commentaries on William Buckley as the architect
of modern conservatism, he was an unapologetic racist bigot. He likened
Dr. Martin Luther King with Nazi leader George Lincoln Rockwell. In
numerous articles in his National Review he vigorously supported white
supremacy, especially in a 1957 editorial, "Why the South Must
Prevail." Unmoved by the lynch-mob mentality of the South, Buckley
argued that there exists, "a median cultural superiority of white over
Negro ... that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and and
anthropologists."
I found these quotes intriguing,
as there were at a length and content level that if true was
inexcusable. It is easy now to be politically correct, as society has
deemed it totally inappropriate to spout racial superiority, at least
if you are white. (Hopefully we will progress to the point where
all racial
superiority is frowned upon.) The true test is what you said during the
time when the question of black civil rights was still a question. If
Buckley was on the side of the segregationists, and he had never
apologized for them, that puts in doubt his very character.
After
doing some Googling, I found an article from a white supremacist
magazine called the American Renaissance, which believes in
"race realism" as they called it, entitled
"The Decline of National Review."
The article showed various illustrations of racist demagoguery on the
part of National Review, not to tear down NR but instead to illustrate
how it deviated from its past by ceasing to publish white supremacist
articles. AR cited this Buckley piece, which is filled with white
supremacist rhetoric:
“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.”
“National Review believes that the
South’s premises are correct. . . . It is more important for the
community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized
standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority.”
“The South confronts one grave moral challenge. It must not exploit the fact of Negro backwardness
to preserve the Negro as a servile class. . . . Let the South never
permit itself to do this. So long as it is merely asserting the right
to impose superior mores for whatever period it takes to effect a
genuine cultural equality between the races, and so long as it does so
by humane and charitable means, the South is in step with civilization,
as is the Congress that permits it to function.”
That
is disgusting stuff. It's not the product of someone saying something
rash and throwing in a few racial slurs. Buckley actually prepared an
editorial for his own publication promoting this sort of filth, at a
time when the fate of black Americans could still turn either way.
National Review editor Jonah Goldberg has written a book,
Liberal Fascism,
that has documented the disturbing trend of the political Left in
America flirting with totalitarian ideologies. I wonder if he will
address this equally disturbing flirtation with white supremacy within
his own magazine?