Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
National Review Defends Its Segregationist Roots.
You'd think that National Review would be trying to put things like its proud advocacy of white supremacy during the Civil Rights Movement to rest, but Fred Schwartz wants you to know that William F. Buckley was right, dammit:
Anyone who knows what “states’ rights” meant in 1964 must shudder at those words; but in retrospect, Goldwater and the editors had at least half a point. When the bill was debated in the Senate, opponents charged that it would require employers and educational institutions to meet rigid racial quotas in hiring and admissions. Nonsense, said the bill’s sponsors (and fully believed what they said). Nowhere did the bill mention quotas; in fact, it repeatedly and explicitly required equal treatment regardless of race. What could be plainer than that? And yet less than a decade later, “affirmative action” became all but mandatory.Schwartz goes on to complain about other "big government" conservative bugaboos, like the Voting Rights Act, and then ties Affirmative Action, the VRA and environmental regulation to health care, presumably because health care reform is another big government initiative that might help the coloreds--and on that, as Schwartz might say, there is "half a point"--I just don't know why that's a problem. It's embarrassing that fifty years after segregation was outlawed conservatism's "flagship publication" is still basing its opposition to "big government" partially on whether or not the proposed legislation assists nonwhites. It's how the National Review can oppose the very concept of universal health care coverage and still support as terrible a violation of personal liberty and democratic principles as torture--like state sanctioned segregation, big government is all good as long as its aimed at putting a cultural other in their place.
Schwartz's pathetic attempt to turn Buckley's flagrant embrace of white supremacy into some kind of abstracy policy argument shouldn't be ignored either. This is what 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.
[...]
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. Sometimes it becomes impossible to assert the will of a minority, in which case it must give way, and the society will regress; sometimes the numerical minority cannot prevail except by violence: then it must determine whether the prevalence of its will is worth the terrible price of violence.
Regardless of what was being "debated in the Senate," Buckley's support of segregation wasn't based on a fear that big government policies would infringe on personal liberty--the editorial was arguing against black suffrage. The point was that whites were "the advanced race" and therefore entitled to dominate their betters--even to the point of denying blacks the right to vote.
See if you can find Schwartz's "half a point" in that.
-- A. Serwer
COMMENTS (13)
It's embarrassing that fifty years after segregation was outlawed conservatism's "flagship publication" is still basing its opposition to "big government" partially on whether or not the proposed legislation assists nonwhites.
I think that they would argue that it is not embarrassing if the strategy is succeeding.
Posted by: rk | August 28, 2009 2:25 PM
might help the coloreds
You really do like to stoke those flames, huh, Adam...nice!
Posted by: Anonymous | August 28, 2009 2:38 PM
National Review believes that the Taliban's premises are correct. It is more important for the community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by Islamic standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority. Sometimes it becomes impossible to assert the will of a minority, in which case it must give way, and the society will regress; sometimes the numerical minority cannot prevail except by violence: then it must determine whether the prevalence of its will is worth the terrible price of violence.
Nah, couldn't find that 1/2 point.
Posted by: red | August 28, 2009 4:06 PM
Don't you think it strange that Buckley in mid-diatribe, allowed himself that slight conditional pause, "for the time being?"
Which possibly suggests that in later years, another group MIGHT gain the upper hand and be entitled to enforce its civilizing will?
I know, good luck with determining who deserves that, but Bill's nervous wuithdrawing from the "Right makes Might" paradigm might contain an intuition that our vaunted civilization had, in fact, passed it zenith and awaited its replacement...
(Wait. I don't talk like that.)
Or maybe "White Power Forever" was too crude.
Posted by: caitlin G | August 28, 2009 6:59 PM
To be fair, Buckley renounced these racist remarks late in his life, but apparently the rest of the righty-whiteys still cling to their racist past.
Posted by: Richard Wang | August 28, 2009 7:10 PM
Anyone doubt that when the ultra-privileged defender of the uber-wealthy said, "Standing athwart history and yelling stop..." it referred to stopping certain people from overcoming historical wrongs? I sure don't.
Posted by: ed | August 28, 2009 8:39 PM
The point was that whites were "the advanced race" and therefore entitled to dominate ***their betters***[?]--even to the point of denying blacks the right to vote.
Posted by: CMike | August 28, 2009 10:35 PM
Just replace the word "South" with
"nation," and you've got an updated version of Conservatism 2009.
After all, whites will be a minority in 30 years.
Posted by: Northern Pike | August 29, 2009 9:40 AM
Googling around, I see lots of claims that WFB renounced earlier racist views, but no proof. I'd love to see a link or quote to something he wrote that verifies the claim.
Posted by: Brian Schmidt | August 30, 2009 8:39 PM
Yes -- at what point did WFB's brand of conservatism change, such that it no longer seemed right to him that those whom he deemed "civilized" should rule over their lessers? Did he ever support anti-apartheid sanctions against South Africa, for example? Apartheid, after all, was justified on precisely the same grounds: the numerical majority of blacks is too savage to be fit to rule over the minority of whites.
"“affirmative action” became all but mandatory."
Gotta love dodges like "all but." Reminds me of the ass-hats finding "death panels" in HR3200 -- ask them where, *exactly*, the bill says anything of the sort, and you get the "all but" sort of reply. God forbid that providers -- especially primary care ones -- actually get reimbursed for spending time with their patients to discuss their end-of-life options. God forbid that we depart in the slightest way from a payment system that does its best to reward only the high-tech interventions and procedures rather than the time and care of physicians.
Posted by: PG | August 31, 2009 1:10 AM
How many Americans are now applying Buckley's viewpoint to Israel?
How much longer will that last?
Posted by: tamroi | September 2, 2009 1:55 AM
Sometimes it becomes impossible to assert the will of a minority, in which case it must give way, and the society will regress; sometimes the numerical minority cannot prevail except by violence: then it must determine whether the prevalence of its will is worth the terrible price of violence.
Posted by: Stainless Steel Pipe | November 18, 2009 12:47 AM
While this subject can be very touchy for most people, my opinion is that there has to be a middle or common ground that we all can find. I do appreciate that youve added relevant and intelligent commentary here though. Thank you!
Posted by: itgeek | January 29, 2010 1:26 AM