The Legacy of William F. Buckley

Summary

The Radio Free Hillsdale Hour Episode: The Legacy of William F. Buckley
Date: April 18, 2025
Host: Scott Bertram

---

Episode Overview

This episode of The Radio Free Hillsdale Hour explores the centennial legacy of William F. Buckley Jr., a seminal figure in the conservative movement, through an in-depth conversation with historian George Nash. The episode also features Dr. Richard Samuelson, who discusses the 250th anniversary of the battles of Lexington and Concord, emphasizing their significance in the American Revolution and the shaping of American civic memory. The main thrust of the episode is to illuminate Buckley’s role in forging modern American conservatism, his influence on conservative institutions, and his enduring impact on both political thought and activism.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Landscape Before Buckley: Conservatism Pre-1950s

Guest: George Nash (25:10–27:00)

• Post-WWII Context: There was “no organized conservative movement really in the United States in an intellectual sense” at the end of World War II. Conservatism was fragmented, intellectually marginalized, and culturally isolated.

  • Quote: “They felt like, like a minority, an endangered minority, and one which was very much against the tide of events.” — George Nash [25:43]

• Liberal Dominance: The “left were the people who were going to remake the world and rebuild the world after the terrible war.”

---

2. William F. Buckley: Early Life & Genesis of a Movement

Guest: George Nash (27:00–31:41)

• Family & Education: Buckley was born in 1925 to a wealthy, devout Catholic, anti-communist family. After military service, he attended Yale University.
• First Major Work: Buckley’s 1951 book, God and Man at Yale, critiqued the secular and collectivist trends at his alma mater, urging alumni to resist. The book provoked strong backlash and made Buckley a media sensation.
  • Quote: “He said this is not what Yale used to stand for...there was a collectivist onslaught...it was being advanced...in the hallowed name of academic freedom.” — George Nash [27:39]
• Combining Christianity, Anti-Communism, and Individualism: Buckley’s personal philosophy was rooted in faith, individual liberty, and anti-communism.

---

3. National Review: Creating a Conservative Forum

Guest: George Nash (31:41–32:52)

• National Review’s Inception: Founded in 1955, it was the first major conservative journal of opinion in the U.S., uniting traditionalists, free-market advocates, and anti-communists.
• Buckley’s Vision: To provide “a forum for intelligent conservative discourse and critique of these trends that they had been standing athwart for so long.”
  • Quote: “He wanted to change the direction of things...” — George Nash [31:41]

---

4. The 'Fusionism' Challenge: What is American Conservatism?

Guest: George Nash (32:52–35:34)

• Competing Factions: Postwar conservatism involved tension between traditionalists (like Russell Kirk), libertarians (like Friedrich Hayek), and anti-communists.
• Intellectual Respectability: Buckley sought to demonstrate that conservatism had “intellectual viability philosophically and also intellectual respectability.”
  • Quote: “There’s a search for a kind of a philosophic underpinning for all of this.” — George Nash [33:26]

---

5. Buckley’s Persona and Cultural Impact

Guest: George Nash (35:34–37:32)

• Advantages of Buckley’s Background: His education, style, wit, and warmth challenged stereotypes that conservatism was dull or unenlightened.
  • Quote: “All of that helped break through what I called the wall of liberal condescension and shatter the stereotype that conservatives are necessarily dumb or evil.” — George Nash [36:00]

---

6. Foundations of Buckley’s Philosophy

Guest: George Nash (37:32–38:51)

• Family Roots and Personal Conviction: Buckley was unshakably Christian, anti-statist, and anti-communist by upbringing and personal experience.
  • Quote: “His father was kicked out of Mexico...and therefore ever afterward a staunch anti-communist, anti-radical, and all of those influences Buckley imbibed, you could say, at home.” — George Nash [37:38]

---

7. Growth and Influence: Who Was Listening?

Guest: George Nash (39:08–42:36)

• Audience: By the early 1960s, National Review had formed the “general staff” of a burgeoning conservative movement, influencing the Goldwater presidential campaign and future leaders.
• Firing Line and Public Presence: Buckley’s TV program, Firing Line (1966–1999), brought conservative debate to a national audience, cementing his status as an intellectual and cultural force.
  • Quote: “He had a vast spectrum of people on that show. That was a very important breakthrough moment... for the conservative cause.” — George Nash [41:46]

---

8. Policing the Movement: Buckley and the John Birch Society

Guest: George Nash (43:00–45:11)

• Defining Boundaries: Buckley actively distanced respectable conservatism from the conspiracy-driven John Birch Society, insisting on intellectual and ethical standards.
  • Quote: “Buckley said, you can’t believe that this is so ridiculous, this kind of conspiracy thinking, that’s not going to get the movement very far.” — George Nash [43:25]

---

9. Goldwater, Reagan, and Political Legacy

Guest: George Nash (45:11–47:22)

• Goldwater’s Effect: Though defeated in 1964, the Goldwater movement set the stage for conservative control of the Republican Party and highlighted the need for new leadership, paving the way for Ronald Reagan.
• Buckley-Reagan Connection: Reagan was an avid reader of National Review and a longtime acquaintance of Buckley, whose ideas and guidance influenced Reagan’s policies and appointments. Buckley became “probably Reagan’s closest advisor... outside the immediate official family of the president.”
  • Quote: “Reagan learned from Buckley’s magazine... Buckley continued to have an influence that way...” — George Nash [45:48]

---

10. Institution-Building and Mentorship

Guest: George Nash (47:56–49:33)

• Nurturing the Next Generation: Buckley founded or patronized conservative organizations, notably Young Americans for Freedom (in his living room, 1960) and the Philadelphia Society. He was recognized for his generosity in mentoring emerging thinkers.
  • Quote: “Buckley was always on the lookout for talent, young talent, and often he was incredibly generous and helpful in placing people and giving them a break as they started up the ladder.” — George Nash [47:56]

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• “Standing athwart history yelling, stop.” — George Nash quoting William F. Buckley [25:43]
• “He made a name for himself.” — Nash, on Buckley’s 1965 New York City mayoral run [41:00]
• “Conservatism can be fun.” — Time Magazine cover describing Buckley [41:31]
• “I sometimes think of Buckley as the Road Runner and the liberals were Wile E. Coyote, always trying to catch up, but they never catch up with him.” — George Nash [49:15]

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• Pre-Buckley Conservatism – [25:10–27:00]
• Buckley’s Early Years and God and Man at Yale – [27:00–31:41]
• Launch of National Review – [31:41–32:52]
• Intellectual Synthesis (Fusionism) – [32:52–35:34]
• Buckley’s Persona and Media Presence – [35:34–37:32]
• Buckley's Philosophical Roots – [37:32–38:51]
• Movement’s Expansion/Audience – [39:08–42:36]
• Firing Line and Popularization – [41:46–42:36]
• Goldwater, John Birch Society, Mainstreaming the Movement – [43:00–45:11]
• Reagan and National Review – [45:11–47:22]
• Mentoring and Building Institutions – [47:56–49:33]

---

Tone & Style

The discussion is intellectually rigorous yet lively, reflecting Buckley’s own style—erudite, witty, and committed to principle without being dour or dogmatic.

---

Conclusion

This episode offers a rich, accessible account of William F. Buckley Jr.’s unique and transformative role in American conservatism. The conversation with George Nash deftly illustrates how Buckley’s vision, intellectual rigor, and personal charisma provided both the philosophical and practical scaffolding for a once-marginalized movement to become a major force in American life. The episode concludes with reflections on Buckley’s long-term influence—including his attention to nurturing young talent and building enduring institutions—securing his legacy as the foremost architect of modern conservatism.

Transcript

[George Nash]

Foreign.

[Scott Bertram]

From the historic campus of Hillsdale College in Hillsdale, Michigan, where the good, the true and the beautiful are taught, nurtured and honored, this is the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour, bringing the activity and education of the college to listeners across the country.

[George Nash]

And so rather than being giving up his residual youthful conservatism and moving to the left, he fought the left, and that was unusual, but he had the kind of grounding that meant that he wasn't simply going to go with the winds.

[Scott Bertram]

This is your host, Scott Bertram. Welcome to the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour, part of the Hillsdale College Podcast Network. That was historian George Nash. We'll talk with him later on in today's program about the significance of William F. Buckley, Jr. And the early history of the conservative movement here in the United States. First, we're joined by Dr. Richard Samuelson. He is associate professor of government at Hillsdale College's Washington, D.C. campus. Dr. Samuelson, thanks for joining us.

[Dr. Richard Samuelson]

Well, thanks for having me, Scott.

[Scott Bertram]

Appreciate it. We continue our conversations today through a series of talks surrounding 250th anniversaries and this time around the 250th anniversary of Lexington and Concord, April 19, 1775. So let's go a few days, weeks, months before April 19, 1775. Describe for us as we begin, as we begin, the interactions between the colonies of British America, the king and parliament of Great Britain in those years leading up to the outbreak of hostilities.

[George Nash]

Yeah.

[Dr. Richard Samuelson]

Well, in when we was last on to discuss the American Revolution, we discussed the Boston Tea Party, which took place at the end of 1773. And in reaction to that, the British passed what the Americans call the intolerable acts and what they call the coercive acts that specifically singled out Massachusetts both to repay the tea, but they shut down Massachusetts government in general. And that was a perhaps a bit of a blunder because what it did is it consolidated support for Massachusetts and the colonies. At first, some people thought the Tea Party was excessive, but they thought the act of if Parliament could shut down the government of Massachusetts, replace it with a military governor, then they could do that to Virginia. And they also consolidated support in Massachusetts and places like Concord. The the inland of Massachusetts thought perhaps the folks in Boston were a little crazy. But the reaction to the Tea Party, it did a great deal towards unifying the colony against the British. And what happened because they shut down the regular government under the old charter, as it was in practice, except for the governor who was appointed by the king, they created a provincial congress which was meeting in Concord. So. And in the, in the months between the second con, the First Continental Congress, which met in the fall of 74 and ended October, and the battles of Lexington, Concord in April, there was kind of a waiting game, particularly in Massachusetts, as troops drilled and they practiced. And the governor, Gage, the royal military governor, was trying to figure out what exactly to do about the situation. So it was getting rather intense. And the way the militia was, in principle, every adult male was supposed to be a member of the militia, but drilling, when times were quiet, was relatively sparse. It was a bit of a carnival day. The militia would turn out and they would have ritual drills, but then there'd be drinking and other things. But when times were serious, drills got much more serious. And that whole winter there was a lot of serious work going on to prepare the Minutemen to participate in battles which they feared were all too likely.

[Scott Bertram]

Take us down that road a little bit farther on. The Minutemen. Who were these Minutemen? What was the average American militia like around this time?

[Dr. Richard Samuelson]

Well, in New England in particular, it was the adult males. John Adams said there were four institutions which are fundamental to shaping the character of the New Englanders, at least so they could resist. They were, well, the town meetings, the schools, the militia and the. The church. Right. And so the militia was part of that. You are participating as an active citizen in the defense of your country. And in principle, every adult male was supposed to be part of that. This is before you had regular police force too. What we call regular police force might look like a standing army from the perspective of the founding era. So every adult male was supposed to be part of the defense of your town and your colony when summoned to do so. That's how it worked. And they were very worried about the example of Rome as they learned the history. They thought when Rome switched to full time professional soldiers and stopped having the typical Roman be responsible for defense, that's when you moved from republic to empire.

[Scott Bertram]

The relation of the famous midnight ride of Paul Revere to this engagement of Lexington and Concord, Tell us maybe not the full story, but a full ish story about that ride and what perhaps some Americans don't know about it.

[Dr. Richard Samuelson]

Okay, well, there are a few things. One is there was this nervous waiting game all winter and the Provincial Congress was inland and Gage was trying to figure out what exactly to do about things thing. It was getting rather tense. He was in Boston and remember back then Boston had a thin neck of land and then which has been filled in and to connect it to the mainland. And he finally got orders in early April to go after the Congress. Meanwhile, among the militia, they said they were training harder and harder. It was getting very tense. And what happens is he finally gets orders, yes, go, attack. And what plan should they use? Well, Worcester, they decided 50 miles away, just too far, too hilly to have a successful operation. Where in Worcester, there were more military stores. Concord was closer, and it's also where Congress was. Sam Adams and John Hancock were there. So they come with a plan to go after the provincials in Concord. They have to go through Lexington to get there. And they want to have absolute secrecy for this plan, of course, which that secrecy does not last. They are betrayed by various reasons. I mean, they've sent spies out to conquer, to scope the territory, and they were discovered. Dr. Bliss, I believe it was, who entertained these spies, was found out, and he got very harsh treatment from locals in general. But the other thing that happened is the vigils in the town had been healed, so the town was fairly unified. And when the plans come through, finally, we're going to attack Concord. Gage tries to have complete secrecy, but the secret is betrayed, is pretty obvious. When his shock troops are told, oh, you're just taking the days off for rest. Everyone knows it's not really for rest, it's prepare for battle. And so Paul Revere and Dawes are. They sneak out and get to Lexington. And at Lexington, I mean, Revere stops to get his horse change. Horse can only ride so far.

[Scott Bertram]

Sure.

[Dr. Richard Samuelson]

Around midnight, and he kind of starts to say, the bells peel, the militia turns out, and he and Dazor stopped by the pickets that the British has successfully set up. However, there's also young Dr. Barrett from a relatively highly placed Concord family, who was dating someone in Lexington. And he also heard about this, I think, through them. I can't remember Zach's story, but he was able to kind of jump the fence and take the bat rose, which he knew very well from going back and forth a lot to get the message to Concord that the British were coming through. So they stop at Revere and Dawes, are stopped at Lexington, but Barrett gets the message all the way through. Meanwhile, the bells are peeling. The militia. Turns out it's a bit of a mess because the militia's there. Well, they keep waiting for the British to show up. They retreat to the tavern, they go out, they go back. And finally, in the morning, the British show up and. And the Continentals. No, they're not Continentals yet. The militia is standing on Lexington Green, about 200 or so. The British command them to disperse. And some do, but many do not. And there's a lot of back and forth. It's not clear exactly how the first shots happened. The prevailing testimony from the American side is that the British shot first. But shots are fired at Lexing Green and then all secrecy is gone. The militia starts peeling in from all over the countryside. The bells are ringing, church to church, town to town. See, that's how you send messages up and down the road. And at that point in time, the British then continue marching towards and they march with music, you know, drums playing because it's too late, into Concord. And they get to Concord and the town is actually pretty deserted because the colonists, they retreated up past the Old North Bridge and they go around town and the Americans successfully threw a lot of the shot into the mill pond. They couldn't get it. Hancock and Sam Adams are gone. They do get some supplies. In some houses, there's some heroics where women successfully say, don't kill. Please don't go in that room. My mom is sick, things like that. And they convince in certain cases the militias not to go into the closet. That's our little room that's holding supplies. But the confrontation finally happens at the Old North Bridge. And then the British are going to have to turn around more in just.

[Scott Bertram]

A moment with Richard Samuelson as he tells us about the battles of Lexington and Concord 250 years after the fact. I want to tell you about something happening right now. That's the Larry Arn show on the Hillsdale College Podcast Network. Each episode brings you Hillsdale College President Dr. Larry Arn sitting down with guests of the college to talk about topics of enduring relevance. Most recently, Michael Ward, a C.S. lewis scholar and theologian, joined Dr. Arn to talk about why objective truth still matters. You also can find Dr. Arn talking with Erik Prince, a Hillsdale graduate, about the future of dynamic warfare, or Sabin Howard on the intricate relationship between art, architecture and the human experience. A great conversation. Up next on the Larry Arn show is an in depth discussion with Bishop Robert Barron. I've heard it. It's wonderful. You'll want to hear it, too. To do so, subscribe now to the Larry Arn Show. You can go to podcast hillsdale.edu, click the subscribe button, then choose Apple Podcast, Spotify, Amazon Music, even YouTube. You'll know when that next episode and all future episodes are released. Join us on the Hillsdale College Podcast Network for the Larry Arn Show Podcast. Hillsdale. Edu subscribe. We continue our conversation with Dr. Richard Samuelson. So following that engagement at Concord, how did the retreat to the British forces to Boston proceed?

[Dr. Richard Samuelson]

Well, not well for the British. The militia came in, they rallied, and back then regular troops march in uniform in regular patterns down the road. The militia, of course, were irregular. Well, they were militia, but they were perfectly happy to line up in the trees, in the woods and around and start picking off troops, which the British, being professionals, regarded as cowardly. You're supposed to meet your enemy in battle, stand before them and shoot them. Right. And the Americans are picking them off all the way clear back to Lexington, where reinforcements arrived. Had they not showed up in Lexington, there would have been many troops left by the time they got back to Boston. And that angered the soldiers, the regular soldiers, the British even more what happened, because they thought that is not fair play. It should be. If I'm going to be a regular soldier who is ready for battle on the field of battle, you should be that way as well. And this would be an ongoing theme with some of the mistreatment of the Americans by the British, different understandings of what it is to engage in war. By the way, Washington very much wanted to develop regulars. And by the time we leave Valley Forge, thanks to the great work of Baron von Steuben, we do have regular troops, but it's a quest because they were not really up to the standards of the full time English troops. But the key story here, though, of course, is the British lost a lot of men on the retreat from Concord to Lexington, and then they retreat to Boston where the siege starts, and militia from all over Massachusetts and then beyond start rallying outside of Boston and the British are holed up inside of Boston.

[Scott Bertram]

How would you compare, contrast the differences in tactics between the British and the colonial militias?

[Dr. Richard Samuelson]

Well, as the British were prepared for regular, they were regular troops from Europe used to the battlefields of Europe. They were very. They were used to facing off against the French in the battlefield. And there were certain rules of engagement that developed over the previous centuries. And of course, this is part of the Age of Enlightenment, the effort to limit the ways in which one engaged in war. Washington, who was a colonel, was raised to a colonel in the French Indian War, fighting in the back country in what's now probably West Virginia, parts of Pennsylvania. That area back there, he learned this just doesn't work in many parts of what's now the United States. This was still those areas that are more frontier, like that way of doing battle simply is not going to work. It will work. And Washington very much wanted that when he had pitched Battles closer to the east coast. But you have to, it was more situational and you had to know what you were doing. This is what Washington learned on that terrible march, Braddock's march inland when they got butchered by the French and the Indians. Right. Braddock thought they were marked single file or a few in a row down the road and they'd be safe. And they got slaughtered. And so then there's a sense that when you don't blame yourself for screwing up, you blame the other people for not playing by the rules. So you have a lot of anger is developed that the Americans are not just damn rebels. And of course rebels are treated people committing treason are treated like pirates. They should not deserve the laws of war which would produce the mistreatment, the horrible mistreatment of American prisoners during the war that watched over protest. And the Americans would learn perhaps the wrong lesson that oh we can our militia is sufficient to kick the British out. And of course that really isn't enough. They were, they would come in and they could help a lot. But there are cases where you really did need a well trained something like a professional army which we did get through the course of the war.

[Scott Bertram]

Talking with Dr. Richard Samuelson about Lexington and Concord. April 19th, 1775250 years ago. How did Lexington and Concord perhaps influence public opinion around the colonies?

[Dr. Richard Samuelson]

Well it's interesting because John Adams thought as others did, once the sword is drawn, throw away the scabbard, that is there really is not much of a choice except independence. Others were much more reluctant that they realized things are much more intense. And there was a plan after the first congress meet in the spring if necessary. Well they're going to be in the spring for the second congress in May. So you're now you're going to be a month after Lexn conquer. And the result of that George Washington shows up in his uniform. Well, hint hint. Although Joseph Ellis said well maybe that was his best fitting suit of clothes. Odds are no. And so the colonists have to decide. They are still colonists. What do we do? What's prudent? And their discussions in Congress what does it mean? Because now you have an army of all these militia but you don't have. They are not under any authority. So the first person in the continental army is Washington who was nominated by John Adams. There's a lot of pushing and shoving. Should Massachusetts troops, New England troops be under New Englander or not? And Adams while the sketch is going on finally says look I'm just going to nominate Washington. And that ends Discussion. And Washington becomes the commander in chief. And then from there, he's going to try to take over these troops. And he's. He's not entirely impressed by the troops. They're not what he would like. New England troops are not used to obeying commands like normal troops. They're used to electing their officers, which is not terribly good for the chain of command. But Washington learned to appreciate their virtues during the course of the war. But when the Congress meets, they have to figure, what do we do about this army? We are now at war. What does it mean? And there is a big move in public opinion towards, okay, now things are really serious. The British independence is kind of the back of people's heads, is the front of people's heads for those who kind of think, well, it's too late to fix anything. But the fundamental contours of the discussion have changed now. And now are they just rebelling? Can they keep fighting till the British stop, or are you going to have to take the next step? That's kind of the background of every discussion they have. And Adam, saying is impatient and he makes a bit of an ass of himself if I say that here, that by pushing too hard, guys, get over it. They're not coming back. It's time for independence. Because prudence dictates you have to wait till everybody's ready for that. And it takes another year or more until there is enough, sufficient public opinion for that. And so in the summer, they're going to give the Olive Branch petition to the king, which is met by the king declaring that the Americans are out of his protection, that he refuses to recognize the Olive Branch petition. So that's. There was a big phase shift. It's not all the way against the British yet, but it's a huge move in that direction. You had the coercive acts. They attack one government, attacks another one. As they say, you're shutting down Massachusetts regular government, putting a military government, among other things, sending people to foreign places for trial. And then there is actual blood, there is fighting, and so there is the rally effect, which scholars talk about happens way back then as well as we.

[Scott Bertram]

Close, how should we remember or what lessons perhaps should we draw from? Looking back on These events, on April 19, 1775, Lexington and Concord.

[Dr. Richard Samuelson]

It's interesting. The memory of Lexington and Concord used to be school children would all learn the midnight ride of Paul Revere on 18-4-75. Hardly a man is now alive who remembers that famous day and year of the midnight ride of Paul Revere. That is not part of our regular education anymore. And so the lesson, one lesson is how we remember these things. The memory of the revolution as part of our common civic understanding is fading. Maybe some of this discussion, the 250th will bring some of that back. Because it's part of being a country that some of these you have your common stories you share. And we've lost that in a world where not long ago Johnny Horton gave a song about the Battle of New Orleans and people would know what it was that wouldn't work anymore. We've lost that common history. So just like Lexington, Concord, other great battles and fights, we have lost that element of our history. So that's one element is it's important to know this. And another element is the common participation. This was not just an elite led group. This was very much across the board that the colonists in general, the prevailing view, you know, Adam says a thumbnail sketch is a third with us, a third against us, and a third, we're unsure there's some truth to that, but it's kind of that's, it's probably more like 20% against. And the ones who are unsure, more of them probably lean towards us than against. But it's very much a popular movement. There was a consensus and you have to move with the consensus in any serious political action and especially a war. And they were very careful about that. Washington was very good about that along the way. He's also very good in respecting the civilian over military that he was under civilian command, even if he was the most important person in the country. And so it's important to remember Lexington conquered the other. And finally, what's this about? It is about free government. The British were trying to replace free government with military government and our right to self rule via democratic process. We call the democratic process. They would not call it that. But electing your own leaders, participating, public discussion, that's being part of the militia is the same thing. We defend ourselves. That's all part of the same story of equal independent citizens who are part of a larger community.

[Scott Bertram]

Dr. Richard Samuelson, Associate professor of government at Hillsdale College's Washington D.C. campus, as we talk the 250th anniversary of Lexington and Concord, April 19, 1775. Dr. Samuelson, thanks so much for joining us.

[Dr. Richard Samuelson]

Thank you very much, Scott.

[Scott Bertram]

Up next, historian George Nash joins us. We'll talk about the significance of William F. Buckley Jr. During this the 100 anniversary year of his birth. I'm Scott Bertram. This is the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour.

[Larry Arn]

Great books, great people, great ideas. Learning about these things is critical to being a well educated human being and we can help with the Hillsdale Dialogues. Each week, Hillsdale College President Larry Arne joins radio veteran Hugh Hewitt to discuss topics of enduring relevance. And from time to time, they also talk about current events, but always with an eye toward more fundamental truths. And they want you to tune in to a conversation like no other. The Hillsdale Dialogues are posted every Monday on the Hillsdale College podcast network@podcast hillsdale.gov that's podcast hillsdale edu or listen via Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you find your audio.

[Podcast Network Announcer]

This show is a part of the Hillsdale College Podcast Network. If you like what you hear, please subscribe to your favorite. You'll get brand new episodes of all your favorite shows sent right to your device and you'll help us know that you're out there listening. Never miss another episode by going to podcast hillsdale.edu subscribe. That's podcast hillsdale edu subscribe or click the Follow or Subscribe button on Apple podcasts, Spotify or YouTube.

[Scott Bertram]

Welcome back to the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour. I'm Scott Bertram. Be sure to check out the Hillsdale College Podcast Network at podcast hillsdale.edu. find older episodes of this program plus all the great Hillsdale College audio Podcast Hillsdale Edu we're joined by George Nash, American historian, a chronicler of the conservative movement, the author of the conservative intellectual movement since 1945. George, thanks so much for joining us.

[George Nash]

Thank you. It's a pleasure to be with you.

[Scott Bertram]

Talking today about William F. Buckley and the beginnings of the conservative movement. I read an interview with you and you said in 1945, end of World War II, no articulate, coordinated, self consciously conservative intellectual force existed in the United States. You paint a picture for us of what it was like to hold those conservative beliefs during that time. What of their, if anything, was of conservatives at that point.

[George Nash]

There was no organized conservative movement really in the United States in an intellectual sense at the end of World War II. We had just been through the years of the Great Depression, the New Deal, the war itself, and there was a feeling that the people on the left were the people who were going to remake the world and rebuild the world after the terrible war. And those who felt that the world had been moving in a bad direction toward more statism, totalitarianism, et cetera, they felt that history was passing them by. And so there were a number of voices out there, but they were not very coordinated voices of protest in the famous words of William F. Buckley, about whom we'll say more in a moment, they were standing athwart history yelling, stop. So they felt like, like a minority, an endangered minority, and one which was very much against the tide of events.

[Scott Bertram]

William F. Buckley. Many of our listeners, most of our listeners are familiar with William F. Buckley, but perhaps more with Buckley later in his life. Who was William F. Buckley at this point, 1955, around the beginning of National Review and the start of this conservative movement? Who was William F. Buckley?

[George Nash]

Yes. Well, I'll give a couple of basic biographical facts. Buckley was born in 1925. After serving in the military in World War II, he entered Yale University. His father was a wealthy conservative Texas oilman. He came from a very large Roman Catholic family, sixth of 10 children. And Buckley was catapulted into fame by the publication of a book highly critical of his alma mater. Buckley went to Yale, graduated class of 19, 18, 50, and he had been brought up to be a devout Christian, an anti communist, and also what they called in those days an individualist, what we today would probably call a libertarian or a free market conservative. And Buckley, as he lived at Yale and became a big man on campus, a famous debater and popular man in the social scene and all of that. Buckley, while personally popular, was very concerned and dismayed by the drift of things at Yale, particularly in the classroom. Keynesian economics, left wing economics, was taking over in the teaching. Christianity was being de emphasized and marginalized. And some of the professors and the faculty were openly disparaging of Christianity in the classroom. And he said, this is not what Yale used to stand for. And it seemed that there was a collectivist onslaught and also it was being advanced, that onslaught, in the hallowed name of academic freedom. So you couldn't really touch it. It just had to be that way. Buckley wrote a book called God and Men at Yale, which he published in 1951, which was his analysis and expose of these trends and his demand that something be done to reverse them. And he didn't just stop with documenting the collectivist and secularizing influence at work on the campus. He said that not the trustees, but the alumni who had received an education from Yale and were in a sense, the consumers of Yale's product, that they should rise up and impose a new orthodoxy on the liberal left wing orthodoxy, which was taking root at Yale, more Christian, free market oriented orthodoxy, if you will. And that was a highly unusual notion at the time, and it caused apoplexy among many of the faculty at Yale and elsewhere. Well, he Published a book in 1951 and it became a bestseller. Well, that was not probably his expectation, but he was helped along, inadvertently, you might say, by the reaction of the Yale faculty and administration. They did not take kindly to this book of vituperation rained down upon Buckley's head in the next several months from people who were outraged at what they thought was a distortion of the facts. Well, that didn't change things much at Yale, but it made him a national media sensation. The book became a bestseller. And here he is, only 26 years old, shortly after the book appeared, so still a young guy, and it made him a leader or at the forefront of this kind of explosion, which got national attention. And the next few years, Bookley did a lot of debating around the country. He also published another book called McCarthy and His Enemies, which was a defense of Senator Joseph McCarthy, the anti communist Red Hunter, as Buckley called him in a later book about him, the Red Hunter. And Buckley became even more famous or notorious. It was a scandal as far as the left was concerned. They thought he was an authoritarian, maybe even a fascist, and ignorant and vicious and so on. He was called all sorts of names, but it made him famous and it encouraged in him a desire to do something more than just write critically about it. And that something in 1955 became the founding of or creation of a magazine, his magazine called National Review. And I have to stress to the listeners here, there was no other conservative journal of opinion in the United States at the time. And he wanted to make this a forum for intelligent conservative discourse and critique of these trends that they had been standing athwart for so long. He wanted to change the direction of.

[Scott Bertram]

Things because there was now something where there was nothing with national review in 1955, was it, was there a sense immediately that something was happening, that something was brewing among those who had these beliefs in the country?

[George Nash]

Yes, there were three broad groupings of people who had been doing some writing in that decade after the war ended. In brief, we would call them traditionalist conservatives, like the Michigan author and distinguished conservative scholar Russell Kirk, Free market advocates like Friedrich Hayek, who wrote the road to serfdom, 1944, and then very strong anti communist cold warriors, some of whom had been communists themselves earlier and had turned against it. So there were three thrusts, therefore, to what you might call conservative dissent and Buckley's desire, his goal, his challenge, was to bring these three rather separate groupings together under one journalistic roof, so that there could be a more coordinated and intellectually satisfying response to the left wing predominance. In the media.

[Scott Bertram]

George Nash is with us, author of the Conservative intellectual movement since 1945, talking about William F. Buckley and the beginnings of the conservative movement. Your book, the Conservative intellectual movement since 1945, at length examines two big questions. What besides a common foe, would hold these groups together, these intellectuals together? So in essence, what is conservatism? And then what is conservatism in America? People can read the book to find the lengthy answer. Could you give us a short answer?

[George Nash]

Well, conservatives came from all different directions and they didn't necessarily have the same basic priorities. And there disputes arose among them between the traditionalists and the libertarians, to use the language of the categories. And so Buckley was looking for a way, and others with him at his magazine to bring some blending of these perspectives together so that they could collaborate and also collaborate with some philosophical consistency. So there's a search for a kind of a philosophic underpinning for all of this. And secondly, they had to meet attacks from the left. Liberals have said, oh, conservatives, those are Neanderthals from Europe, no relevance to the United States. The United States has always been a liberal, Lockean country. And these people are just flaky, eccentric, and if not worse, they might be yahoos and nativists and conspiracy theorists and even anti Semites and so forth, not respectable people. So what Buckley was trying to do was to show that there was intellectual viability philosophically and also intellectual respectability. And also that America in many ways was a conservative country and America had a tradition of freedom that ought to be conserved. A few will an American tradition of limited government as opposed to ever expanding government, the administrative state, the welfare state, et cetera. And also America was conserving the values of Western civilization, including the Judeo Christian religious tradition, in the face of attack from the communists, who were atheists by definition and anti capitalist by definition. And so communism was a threat that everybody, or opposition to communism was something that all of these groups on the right could share. It was common ground. And Buckley in a way personified that in his own belief system and also in his practices as an editor.

[Scott Bertram]

Buckley came for money. He went to Yale. He enjoyed sailing and classical music and love Bach and dinner parties. Was the way that conservatism developed during this time influenced at all by his background? And was that in any way an advantage or a disadvantage to the appeal of what he was doing at the time?

[George Nash]

Well, when Buckley came on the scene, he was very polished. He had a good education. He had been to private school and all of that he was articulate, had quite a vocabulary. He was obviously already a facile writer and became really a very great writer as well as a very, very productive writer. So he had a good education. So he belied the stereotype that only liberals were intelligent and conservatives, if they call themselves that, or right wingers, were somehow humorless and dull, ignorant and so on. And, and when he came on the scene, Time magazine said that he was a rebel in reverse and they called him a fire eating young conservative. Only left wingers are supposed to be young and fire eating. So he was young and debonair and that caught attention. And because of his skills and his educational patina, his panache, you know, his style, if you will, all of that helped break through what I called the wall of liberal condescension and shatter the stereotype that conservatives are necessarily dumb or evil. Even so, Buckley became a kind of a happy warrior, if you will, who could meet liberals on their own terms and because of his debating skills and all do very well.

[Scott Bertram]

Again, where did Buckley himself find the underpinnings for his philosophy?

[George Nash]

I think they came from his family environment. I mentioned that his father was very conservative, is a very conservative Catholic family. And Buckley said he never had doubts about his Christian faith. He was brought up Christian, so that's one major source. His father was a businessman and therefore had some of the businessman's suspicion of over regulation by the state. Also, his father was kicked out of Mexico by Mexican leftists at the time of revolutionary ferment in Mexico in the late teens and early 20s of the 20th century. And his father was therefore ever afterward a staunch anti communist, anti radical, and all of those influences Buckley imbibed, you could say, at home. So when he went to Yale, he wasn't adrift, he had moorings and he saw the college standing for things antithesis to what he had been brought up. And so rather than being giving up his residual youthful conservatism and moving to the left, he fought the left. And that was unusual. But he had the kind of grounding that made meant that he wasn't simply going to go with the winds.

[Scott Bertram]

Talking with George Nash, American historian, chronicler of the conservative movement, author of the conservative intellectual movement since 1945. In this first decade or so, say Post National Review 1955. Who's listening? Who's paying attention to these new conservatives.

[George Nash]

In the U.S. well, it starts small with 8 or 10,000 subscribers, but it obviously reached an audience rather quickly. Buckley's magazine became a kind of general staff for the development of it was becoming conservative, more self conscious conservatism. And this began to flourish, this phenomenon in the early 60s with the rise of the Goldwater phenomenon. Goldwater. Senator Barry Goldwater, the Republican presidential candidate in 1964, had written in 1960 a book which sold, I think, 3 million plus copies called the Conscience of a Conservative. And this is no secret, it was ghostly, written by Buckley's brother in law and best friend, a man named Brent Bozell. So there was popular awareness. And Kennedy comes in, John Kennedy, and he seems to be moving the country to what he called a new frontier, moving it to the left, and there is a resistance to that on the right. And National Review becomes the kind of the central magazine for disseminating that viewpoint in intelligent, persuasive ways. And buckley by the mid-60s, was on his way to becoming obviously a leader of this force, but also moving into the mainstream in various ways that we might discuss. He became a candidate for mayor of New York City in 1965. As a conservative. He didn't win, but he made conservatism much more visible and all audible to a lot of voters. And that led a couple of years later to his being on the COVID of Time magazine. His cover story for about him in 1967 with the caption Conservatism can be Fun. And so he again was belying these older liberal stereotypes that conservatives could be just dismissed, unimportant and so forth. And also, and quite importantly, in Buckley's development as a public figure, this came about right after the mayoral campaign of 1965, in which he was very clever on the debates that the mayoral candidates had and so on. And so he made a name for himself. In 1966 he started Firing Line. It was a one hour interview show, usually with one guest, in which they would discuss, hash out and argue about all sorts of issues. He had a vast spectrum of people on that show. That was a very important breakthrough moment, I think, for Buckley personally and for the conservative cause. And I should just say, since we're talking to a media sensitive audience here, that that show, firing line lasted 33 years and Buckley had more than 1500 episodes. The man was a worker and he not only did that, but he influenced, I know, so many people who were impressed by his mental and verbal agility, his urbanity, his wit. He was very witty, very humorous. And all of this attracted many people to him and that gave a hearing to his beliefs, you see. So Buckley, by the late 60s, was a leading national voice for conservative and also a celebrity even. He had Broken out of that ghetto, you might say, of the right wing.

[Scott Bertram]

I want to back up to Goldwater for just a moment because the Goldwater nomination and candidacy could be looked at as a great victory because now these ideas are being seen on a national level. At the same time, the actual election itself could be seen as a big loss because Goldwater was wiped out. How does Buckley and this movement react to the reaction to Goldwater's campaign in 64?

[George Nash]

Well, for one thing, Buckley wanted, and he started even before the election, to drive to the periphery of conservatism, those who were really beyond the pale of respectability. In particular, he attacked the John Birch Society, which had a considerable following for a time in the early 60s. But it was built on the theory that the dangers that America faced in the world were the cause not simply of the communists abroad, but of communists within who were distorting American foreign policy. And Robert Welch, the founder, claimed that Eisenhower, President Eisenhower was, and I'm quoting now from memory, Welch's dismissal of Eisenhower as an conscious, articulate instrument of the communist conspiracy. And Buckley said, you can't believe that this is so ridiculous, this kind of conspiracy, conspiracy thinking, that's not going to get the movement very far. So. But the Goldwater campaign had several results. First, it disastrously defeated Goldwater, and it led to enormous Democratic majorities under Lyndon Johnson. So in public policy, the country lurched to the left, the Garrit Society, but the Great Society rather quickly ran into trouble, and so there was a reaction against it, and Buckley, of course, was there to articulate a strong, strong conservative case against. Also led to two other important factors going forward politically. One, it enabled the conservatives who had nominated Goldwater to take over the organizational machinery of most Republican Party state organizations. That's very important. Goldwater lost the election, but the party apparatus was now controlled by Goldwater ites, who would then be looking for some other candidate in the future. And thirdly, it created a new political voice for conservatism in Ronald Reagan, who gave that famous speech in support of Goldwater on TV just before the election. And it was so well done that it evoked, I think, millions of dollars in responses from people, and it made Reagan a national sensation.

[Scott Bertram]

So, yes, Ronald Reagan, who's a supporter of Barry Goldwater, speaks for Barry Goldwater, this politician who's a National Review reader and eventually ascends to the presidency in 1980.

[George Nash]

Yes.

[Scott Bertram]

How much should we connect Reagan's ascendance, the Reagan agenda, to what buckley began in 1955 with National Review?

[George Nash]

Well, as you just said Reagan read National Review from the beginning. The two men became acquainted in 1961, and their friendship deepened in time. And Buckley was articulating these core views of limited government, free market capitalism, and what we might call, in a way, social conservatism and the defense of the social order against unlawful attempts to disrupt it and so forth. Some of the turmoil of the 60s that was related to, in part, to the Vietnam War, protests and the like. So National Review was. Was really the central magazine. And Reagan was an avid reader of that. And Reagan was a reader. He was a student. People don't think of him that way, but I think the research shows it. So when all of that was happening, Buckley was there, in a sense, in an advisory role. And I made the point, I have made the point elsewhere that Buckley was not quite a tutor to Reagan. Reagan learned from many sources, but Reagan learned from Buckley's magazine. And during Reagan's presidency, Reagan frequently received advice from Buckley quietly, on personnel matters and other significant matters in running the administration. And it has been said by one of Reagan's biographers that Buckley was probably Reagan's closest advisor, really most trusted advisor outside the immediate official family of the president. So Buckley continued to have an influence that way, Even though from 1980 on, there were, you might say, two maestros. The maestro Buckley, and then now the political one, implementing, you might say, some of the Buckley vision of things that occurred under President Ronald Reagan.

[Scott Bertram]

We only have a moment left, but I want to ask this question. I talked to Lawrence Perlman recently about his book, his friendship with William F. Buckley. And something we talked about was his openness and his ability to encourage younger Americans to be involved and to have them part of the movement. How did he see that his influence would continue decades into the future in terms of mentoring, encouraging younger Americans to be involved and to take up the mantle?

[George Nash]

I think a couple of points could be made quickly. One, Buckley was always on the lookout for talent, young talent, and often he was incredibly generous and helpful in placing people and giving them a break as they started up the ladder. He was very attentive to that. Secondly, he was an institution builder. He literally patronized the founding of Young Americans for Freedom, the conservative youth organization of the 60s, in his. His living room of the family home in Connecticut. That was done in 1960. And Buckley did other things that were similar in character to build up institutions which would make conservatism more than just the expression of a moment. He gave the first check to found the Philadelphia Society, the nation's oldest and today to this day, the preeminent organization society of conservative intellectuals in the United States. United States. So he had that kind of long range vision, farsightedness and also again, his whole Persona, I think was attractive to many young people. This man with flair, articulateness and seemed to be enjoying life and just outrunning the competition. This will sound perhaps a bit of a stretch, but I sometimes think of Buckley as the Road Runner and the liberals were Wile E. Coyote, always trying to catch up, but they never catch up with him. He was so deft and, and energetic and so on and was a very good public face for conservatism in the years of his prime.

[Scott Bertram]

George Nash, American historian and chronicler of the conservative movement. His well known book, the Conservative intellectual movement since 1945. George, thank you so much for joining us here on the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour.

[George Nash]

It's been a pleasure. Thank you.

[Scott Bertram]

That will wrap up this edition of the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour. Our thanks to Dr. Richard Samuelson from Hillsdale in D.C. and George Nash. Remember, you can hear new episodes every week on this station. You also can find extended versions of some of our interviews or listen anytime to the podcast. Find it at Podcast Hillsdale, Edu or wherever, whenever you get your audio. Until next week, I'm Scott Bertram, and this has been the Radio Free Hillsdale Hour.