I’m not defending him as I think was a gaseous old windbag, but 1957 is a little gap between 2008 and holding people to present standards ( he did actually racant those views) would also mean we ought lift Senator Robert Byrd’s coffin lid and see what comes of there. Bobby Byrd was a high up member of the KKK and is now the most senior (dem) senator in congress.

“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 where it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes—the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.”
—William F. Buckley, National Review, August 24, 1957

He also suggested that the uneducated should be denied the vote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/27/business/media/27cnd-buckley.html?_r=3&hp=&oref=login&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

and he did a stint in the CIA. Nice.

It’s a mistake to think that intelligent, educated people will naturally embrace ‘progressive’ attitudes.

So being tolerent of gays and minorities is now a progressive ideal? Is that monopoly, don? Do we have to call the ACCC for a fair hearing?

Interesting thought ‘the progressives’ predecessors.’ I never quite get what folks are referring to when they describe others/themselves as ‘progressive.’ Please explain.

I think it is a just tad precious to insist “Buckley’s gay baiting in the clip is completely disgraceful and disgusting.” We ARE talking about 1969 here. Remember, in 1969 homosexuality was a crime in every state of Australia. If you bare familiar with Vidal’s oeuvre, you would know that he dishes out much worse.

I wonder how many of the “progressives” here could have thrown the first stone in 1969?

The point here isn’t to bash conservatives for benighted views from decades ago that most people on the contemporary right don’t hold. The point, rather, is that conservatives today should reflect on the fact that their predecessors did sometimes say embarrassing or even shameful things in the name of defending “traditional values.” Such reflection should lead to the conclusion that indiscriminate defense of traditional values isn’t proper conservatism at all. It’s reactionary populism.

Conservatives should therefore recognize that lapsing into reactionary cultural populism is a characteristic vice of the right, and they should be on their guard against it.

Fair point, and indeed I aspire to the contrary order - indiscriminate embrace of libertarian ideals tempered by deep respect for the value of tradition and awareness of human fragility.

But in equal measure progressives should reflect on the fact that their predecessors did often say embarrasing or even shameful things in the name of advocating ‘progress’ and condemning tradition. Such reflection should lead to the conclusion that indiscriminate advocacy of progress doesn’t lead to proper progress at all. It leads to the breakdown of human norms, chaos and ultimately, if unchecked, communism.

Progressives should therefore recognize that lapsing into reactionary condemnation of tradition and traditional structures is a characteristic vice of the left, and they should be on their guard against it.

I’ll let Brink Lindsey explain.

Afterwards Vidal seemed pleased with the performance:

on Wednesday, August 28, at nine-thirty o’clock, in full view of ten million people, the little door in William F. Buckley Jr.’s forehead suddenly opened and out sprang that wild cuckoo which I had always known was there but had wanted so much for others, preferably millions of others, to get a good look at. I think those few seconds of madness, to use his word, were well worth a great deal of patient effort on my part.

At the time many left wing intellectuals thought that Buckley got away with expressing offensive opinions because he seemed so charming and articulate. They thought people were taken in by his style. That’s why Vidal thought that he’d won some kind of victory. I think they made a mistake about this. A lot of people listened to Buckley because they agreed with his ideas.

It’s a mistake to think that intelligent, educated people will naturally embrace ‘progressive’ attitudes. Intelligence and education might prevent you from believing that the earth is flat but they won’t automatically prevent you from being prejudiced against out groups.

Any show that runs for thirty plus years is going to get tired. But most commentators seem to agree that Firing Line was influential. For example, here’s Laurence Zuckerman in the NYT:

At the beginning, Mr. Buckley, who was a skilled debater from his student days at Yale, set out to eviscerate his opponents. Mr. Judis wrote that Neal Freeman, Mr. Buckley’s personal assistant at the time, modeled the program after the Friday night fights that were then nationally televised.

The guest on the first ”Firing Line” was Norman Thomas, the Socialist and perennial presidential candidate, who by then was 81 and losing his eyesight. ”When you argue with a man who is old and blind, you are pretty tough,” said Warren Steibel, producer and director of ”Firing Line” since its early days. But ”it made good theater,” he added.

And good television. Mr. Buckley drove liberal viewers around the bend by defending Senator Joseph McCarthy, tarring his guests as communists and questioning such liberal orthodoxy as universal voting rights in the South. With his tousled hair, blue eyes that tended to bulge like an exotic lizard’s, portentous vocabulary and halting patrician speech, he quickly established himself as the face of a new kind of conservatism: intelligent, urbane, witty, cutting.

Everyone agreed that William F Buckley was good television.

You reckon? It was awful television. I think there were 5 people in the entire US that would watch Firing Line in the end. I was one of them He was a awful waffler but he did have good guests on and you could at least listen to them-1/2 the debate.. It was actually hard making out what he was saying. I used to think PBS kept him on to damage the right.