William F. Buckley Jr. and Michael Kinsley
Rehnquist, Bork, and the Civil Rights Act
By William Buckley Jr.
Posted Wednesday, March 28, 2001, at 5:56 PM ETMichael Kinsley reminisced on the late William F. Buckley during an online chat on Feb. 28, 2008. Read the transcript.
Dear Michael,
Yes, the Civil Rights Act of l964. I have not read Pearlstine's book on Goldwater but saw the extensive notice of it in The New Yorker, which tells me (now, us) things I didn't know, though Goldwater and National Review faced the same problem in l964 when the bill was drawn up. We learn from the book that Goldwater agonized over how to vote, but we learn also that he asked advice of two people, a young attorney in Phoenix and a fledgling academic at Yale. The lawyer, William Rehnquist, advised that in his opinion, the act was unconstitutional. Robert Bork wrote a 75-page memorandum outlining his views. I imagine that the piece you refer to in the New Republic gave those views.
At National Review we opined against the bill for reasons I suppose are the same as those given by Rehnquist and Bork. What interests me at this point is your saying that it has been a "success." I agree but wonder about the role that retrospective success plays in matters of this sort. Before I forget it, we should pause to note that that was the same act that Sen. Humphrey promised to eat if ever it were adduced as authority to deny to nonwhites a civil liberty.
I'd have voted against the bill, but if it were out there today, I'd vote for it, precisely for the reason you gave. I'd vote with trepidation, however, for the obvious reason that successful results cannot necessarily legitimize the means by which they were brought about. If civil war might have been avoided by other of means preserving the union and paving the way for minority rights, that would have been a good thing, right? My (probably unoriginal) definition of statesmanship is the avoidance of crisis. I was on the side of not permitting the Nazis to march in Skokie. That reflects not only my resistance to absolutizing rights (an issue, you earlier suggested, that comes up in connection with McCain-Feingold), but also that I don't believe in the rights of others to plot the destruction of rights.
But this is a little dull, so perhaps it doesn't matter that I really am running out of time. I saw the Oklahoma City explosion memorial and felt no qualm about the forthcoming end of Mr. McVeigh. Forgive the haste.
Ever,
B
Rehnquist, Bork, and the Civil Rights Act
By William Buckley Jr.
Posted Wednesday, March 28, 2001, at 5:56 PM ETLike This Story
Reader Comments from The Fray:
[Thursday notes from the Fray Editor: Bruce F. Cole appears to be addressing here some amalgamated version of the two distinguished Breakfast Tablers, but we never let that sort of consideration stand in the way of a cheap shot in The Fray. A couple of readers pointed out that the Girard bequest to which Mr. Buckley refers (Wednesday) was made in the 1840s; the Supreme Court struck down its whites-only provision in 1968. Tom R (yes, again) writes about diversity with the memorable sentence "Working for the Air Force you get all sorts of opportunities to find out how to discriminate against other people, sexually prey on their weaknesses, steal the government's money, and solicit bribes from government contractors." There appears to be some attempt to link this description with Slate, but best left hidden we think.]
Boycotts are for sissies. The Yale students planning a boycott of Clinton's appearance are only doing it to draw attention to themselves. They deserve no such attention. Boycotting a speech doesn't do anything. It doesn't even say anything. It just sort of suggests that people who do not want to do or even say anything want very badly to look as if they are.
Do these Yalies disapprove of Sen. Clinton, or what she represents? Fine; let them show in their post-Yale lives that they stand for something better. That would be a statement worth making. Right now it doesn't sound as if they have anything to say.
--Joseph Britt
(To reply, click here.)
[Wednesday notes from the Fray Editor: The Fray is divided into two camps: those who think modes of address a dull topic, and those who cannot pile their perceptions in fast enough. There is also a meta-level of discussion as to what makes a good "Breakfast Table" and a good Fray--see for example Charmy, here. Alexander Chancellor raises an excellent point about possible national differences in formality.
Those who could tear themselves away from names wanted to discuss affirmative action here, and here ("I'm confused, they're both wrong"). Tom R, in addition to the contribution below, revealed that he once received a memorably specific grant for being an "exceptional married engineering student who planned to attend grad school". We're sure you deserved it Tom. More good stories here and here.
Publius wants the Fray Editor to ask Mr Buckley a question, but Zeitguy knows why she can't: "We talk to Kinsley, Kinsley talks to God, God sends email to Buckley..."]
Being an old friend of Michael or Mike Kinsley, yet still undecided whether to call him Mike or Michael, I am particularly interested in this correspondence. I tend towards calling him Michael, not because I object to "Mike" in any way at all but because I am British and somehow assume that "Michael" is what would be expected of me by Americans, even though Britain long ago became a nation of "Mikes" rather than "Michaels". When I was editor of the Spectator in the 1970s, I published a couple of rather dull articles by a young lawyer under the name Anthony Blair. He is now Prime Minister and would be appalled if anyone called him anything other than Tony.
--Alexander Chancellor
(To reply, or to read this post in full, click here.)
If, as Mr. Kinsley suggests, Mr. Buckley must defend his preference for civilized formality on grounds other than tradition, it seems to me Kinsley should argue for informality on grounds other than its current vogue among Internet users. They've also made all-lowercase the standard for email, but we're in no rush to adopt that as general usage.
--Scott Dickensheets
(To reply, click here.)
Harvard may be privately controlled but it's larded with government funding in both its research programs and in government subsidies for basic education programs. I'd only accept Mr. Buckley's concept about affirmative action being acceptable for the private sector if in fact Harvard (or any other private college) could set up some sort of 'Chinese Wall' to segregate the publicly funded segments from the privately funded segments. The latter then could come under the Buckley programmatic blessing.
--Tom R
(To reply, click here.)
[Monday notes from the Fray Editor: It would be quite an achievement to be considered the biggest troublemaker on the Fray, but we may have a contender: step forward Neill Hamilton. We are naturally not going to publish the offending post, in which he tries to turn Breakfast Tablers against each other, but we will tell you that he has tried this in the past (here and here) and made a notably bad taste post which required a special reader warning. Amber, below, is doing her best, too.]
Two thoughts for Mr. Buckley: The nicknamed figures of stature you mention are Southerners. For reasons I've never quite plumbed, given names are normally shortened there (I accepted the same sort of abbreviation during several years in the South), regardless of the formality of the situation. Yankees adopt nicknames less consistently.
As a New Yorker somewhere in age between you and Michael Kinsley, I can't escape thinking of you as Mr. Buckley and him as Michael. Age evidently has something to do with it. In print, his bylines are always Michael, but he's a leader in an industry largely run by and for an even younger generation, one far less formal than either of you.
The more interesting question might be if it matters at all in this era. A great many Southerners command respect whatever they're called.
--Ellie C
(To reply, click here.)
What do your parents call you when you are in trouble? By your nickname or by your full name? Seems to me William, and poor Christopher, were awful children who did nothing but get into mischief and trouble. They are just used to being called by their full names.
--Amber
(To reply, click here.)
(3/26)
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
SPONSORED CONTENT
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
The Scary, Growing Backlash Against American Islam
The New York Times' Skimpy Evidence That Women Are Suddenly Proud To Be Flat-Chested
Automakers Used Dead Bodies To Test Their Cars. What Else Are Cadavers Good For?
Finally, a Romantic Comedy That Doesn't Center Around Two Mean, Shallow Jerks
Is the NYT Book Review Really a Boys' Club? We Ran the Numbers.
Yes, the U.S. Auto Industry Is Smaller—but Now It's Healthier
Reader Comments from The Fray:
[Thursday notes from the Fray Editor: Bruce F. Cole appears to be addressing here some amalgamated version of the two distinguished Breakfast Tablers, but we never let that sort of consideration stand in the way of a cheap shot in The Fray. A couple of readers pointed out that the Girard bequest to which Mr. Buckley refers (Wednesday) was made in the 1840s; the Supreme Court struck down its whites-only provision in 1968. Tom R (yes, again) writes about diversity with the memorable sentence "Working for the Air Force you get all sorts of opportunities to find out how to discriminate against other people, sexually prey on their weaknesses, steal the government's money, and solicit bribes from government contractors." There appears to be some attempt to link this description with Slate, but best left hidden we think.]
Boycotts are for sissies. The Yale students planning a boycott of Clinton's appearance are only doing it to draw attention to themselves. They deserve no such attention. Boycotting a speech doesn't do anything. It doesn't even say anything. It just sort of suggests that people who do not want to do or even say anything want very badly to look as if they are.
Do these Yalies disapprove of Sen. Clinton, or what she represents? Fine; let them show in their post-Yale lives that they stand for something better. That would be a statement worth making. Right now it doesn't sound as if they have anything to say.
--Joseph Britt
(To reply, click here.)
[Wednesday notes from the Fray Editor: The Fray is divided into two camps: those who think modes of address a dull topic, and those who cannot pile their perceptions in fast enough. There is also a meta-level of discussion as to what makes a good "Breakfast Table" and a good Fray--see for example Charmy, here. Alexander Chancellor raises an excellent point about possible national differences in formality.
Those who could tear themselves away from names wanted to discuss affirmative action here, and here ("I'm confused, they're both wrong"). Tom R, in addition to the contribution below, revealed that he once received a memorably specific grant for being an "exceptional married engineering student who planned to attend grad school". We're sure you deserved it Tom. More good stories here and here.
Publius wants the Fray Editor to ask Mr Buckley a question, but Zeitguy knows why she can't: "We talk to Kinsley, Kinsley talks to God, God sends email to Buckley..."]
Being an old friend of Michael or Mike Kinsley, yet still undecided whether to call him Mike or Michael, I am particularly interested in this correspondence. I tend towards calling him Michael, not because I object to "Mike" in any way at all but because I am British and somehow assume that "Michael" is what would be expected of me by Americans, even though Britain long ago became a nation of "Mikes" rather than "Michaels". When I was editor of the Spectator in the 1970s, I published a couple of rather dull articles by a young lawyer under the name Anthony Blair. He is now Prime Minister and would be appalled if anyone called him anything other than Tony.
--Alexander Chancellor
(To reply, or to read this post in full, click here.)
If, as Mr. Kinsley suggests, Mr. Buckley must defend his preference for civilized formality on grounds other than tradition, it seems to me Kinsley should argue for informality on grounds other than its current vogue among Internet users. They've also made all-lowercase the standard for email, but we're in no rush to adopt that as general usage.
--Scott Dickensheets
(To reply, click here.)
Harvard may be privately controlled but it's larded with government funding in both its research programs and in government subsidies for basic education programs. I'd only accept Mr. Buckley's concept about affirmative action being acceptable for the private sector if in fact Harvard (or any other private college) could set up some sort of 'Chinese Wall' to segregate the publicly funded segments from the privately funded segments. The latter then could come under the Buckley programmatic blessing.
--Tom R
(To reply, click here.)
[Monday notes from the Fray Editor: It would be quite an achievement to be considered the biggest troublemaker on the Fray, but we may have a contender: step forward Neill Hamilton. We are naturally not going to publish the offending post, in which he tries to turn Breakfast Tablers against each other, but we will tell you that he has tried this in the past (here and here) and made a notably bad taste post which required a special reader warning. Amber, below, is doing her best, too.]
Two thoughts for Mr. Buckley: The nicknamed figures of stature you mention are Southerners. For reasons I've never quite plumbed, given names are normally shortened there (I accepted the same sort of abbreviation during several years in the South), regardless of the formality of the situation. Yankees adopt nicknames less consistently.
As a New Yorker somewhere in age between you and Michael Kinsley, I can't escape thinking of you as Mr. Buckley and him as Michael. Age evidently has something to do with it. In print, his bylines are always Michael, but he's a leader in an industry largely run by and for an even younger generation, one far less formal than either of you.
The more interesting question might be if it matters at all in this era. A great many Southerners command respect whatever they're called.
--Ellie C
(To reply, click here.)
What do your parents call you when you are in trouble? By your nickname or by your full name? Seems to me William, and poor Christopher, were awful children who did nothing but get into mischief and trouble. They are just used to being called by their full names.
--Amber
(To reply, click here.)
(3/26)