William F. Buckley, Jr. and Firing Line: Posturing over Pragmatic Politics

In Up From Liberalism, published in 1959, William Buckley addressed racial issues in a way which can only be described as decidedly racist today and probably even for the late 1950’s. He asks a question: “Is Southern opposition to integrated schooling based exclusively on the desire to suppress the Negro?” The Supreme Court case of Brown v Board of Education, essentially ending segregated public schools was five year earlier in 1954. Here, Buckley shows support for Southern white opposition to integration. And, it only gets worse. Buckley contends that liberals pushed for an end to segregated public schools. “[Their] influence is being used to encourage a ruthless resolution in the teeth of Southern opposition.” Finally, he addresses in a rather ruthless way the suppression of African-Americans in the South:

[T]here are circumstances when the minority can lay claim to preeminent authority, without bringing down upon its head the moral opprobrium of just men. In the South, the white community is entitled to put forward a claim to prevail politically, because, for the time being anyway, the leaders of American civilization are white.

In 1986, when AIDS was clearly becoming a major concern, Buckley, writing in the New York Times, wrote:

Everyone detected with AIDS should be tatooed in the upper forearm, to protect common-needle users, and on the buttocks, to prevent the victimization of other homosexuals.

In looking at what Buckley wrote in 1959 regarding the South, he had to be aware that violence to prevent improvement in the status of African-Americans was part of Southern history. One study that addressed civil rights in the 1950’s and earlier stated, regarding Birmingham, Alabama, “So many black homes and churches had been bombed over the years that many Southern blacks had taken to calling the city ‘Bombingham.'” Did he see this type of statement, this type of thinking, as justifying violent actions taken by Southern whites as legitimate, as “entitled?” This reads like an incredibly callous statement. Somewhere in his 1959 book, he could have demonstrated some understanding of the situation for African-Americans in the South, and what to do about it. Basically, Buckley seems to assume that in some rather vague way if change came it just happened, as though one day waking up to see a better world.

In 1986, suggesting that segregating AIDS sufferers into those branded with a modern version of The Scarlet Letter (a reference he makes in his article) had to reek of a lack of compassion. Somewhere in his New York Times essay, he could have devoted a few words to more than just punitive action, focusing on AIDS research, encouraging Federal money to consider it a priority, he might have made himself seem enlightened and compassionate. The reason for bringing these two pieces of Buckley’s writing up, before getting to his long-running TV show Firing Line, is to provide some perspective on how to remember his show and its legacy. At the end of a fine book on Firing Line and its impact, author Heather Hendershot writes:

[O]n the very last episode [Buckley] asked liberal Mark Green, with a flourish of impertinence that was suitable to the occasion, “Tell us…what impression you carry off about your one appearances on Firing Line. Did you learn anything.” Green had. We all had.

In June 2018, PBS began an updated version of Firing Line with Margaret Hoover as the host. Buckley’s Firing Line ran for 33 years from 1966 to 1999 with 1,505 shows. In 1969 the show won an Emmy Award. It originally began on WOR-TV in New York and then switched to the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) in 1971. Hoover stated the reason for this new Firing Line: “There is something in the zeitgeist … a thirst for prolonged, substantive, reasonable, sustained conversation that unfolds and that’s informed, is engaging, educational, entertaining, all in one.”

Firing Line was a show that certainly is in sharp contrast with cable TV news today. Watching Rachel Maddow repeat something and then again and again, turning TV news into her version of theater, or Tucker Carlson looking disgusted into the camera at a question he asked where he gets the answer he wants to display a look that should be patented, can easily wear down anyone watching.

In 1998, Ann Coulter appeared on Firing Line to discuss her book, High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton. In watching this episode, Coulter comes across in a way where even a fervent support of Bill Clinton could take time to listen to a serious argument made to impeach Clinton. How far down Coulter has fallen, or intentionally gone, where she is that a point that putting up a mental barrier against anything she now has to say or write is completely acceptable since it can easily be considered as outlandish and is often silly.

What Firing Line did for the very small segment of the public that took the time to watch the show, was to make conservative thinking respectable and credible. But, bear in mind the statements made by Buckley on how he saw White rights in the South and his approach to addressing AIDS, are difficult to find on any Firing Line episode. Some of the dirty undercurrents of conservative thinking were simply ignored: This was a serious weakness of the show. Frequently over the three decades of Firing Line, Buckley took the unusual step of turning the tables on himself and having several guests ask questions of him. This would have been the appropriate times to address how he had changed regarding his thinking.

In fact, on the issue of segregation a January 1968 episode titled “The Wallace Crusade,” had Buckley challenge former Alabama governor George Wallace on issues, including his statements on segregation where Wallace sees no problem in Alabama but he sees the problem as worse in New York. That episode showed that Buckley had gone through a transformation regarding Civil Rights issues. Buckley’s primary emphasis in this episode, however, was to speculation on the impact that Wallace might have on the upcoming 1968 Presidential election. Wallace was considering a run as a third party candidate, which he did. Buckley wondered whether he could pull enough votes away presumably from the Republican candidate (Richard Nixon becomes the candidate) to give the election to the Democrats (Hubert Humphrey will be the Democratic candidate). Buckley constantly challenges Wallace regarding his position on segregation and uses the opportunity to distinguish Wallace from “prominent” conservatives. An opportunity to go through his own change in thinking would help to provide insight into how he had changed his views on segregation.

Certainly, Fox News goes out of its way to find statements made by anyone they want to easily brand as “left” that make a normal voter, someone in that moderate liberal to moderate conservative category, cringe. Representative Maxine Waters (D, CA), for example, manages frequently to easily say something that is hard to shallow. Waters at a rally encouraging supporters to harass members of the Trump Administration, stating: “Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.” To listen to this sounds like nonsense and Fox News hopes to be part of the political landscape by doing its part to paint Democrats and anyone associated with them in terrible ways.

Firing Line did its part in presenting an image of conservative without the warts. Political ideology is more than just principles, or ethics, it can provide cover to gloss over serious problems. It can provide justification and rationalization to believe that serious issues can be swept under the rug. Pragmatism, where ideological driven thinking should be held in check can end up being a liability.

Liberalism has its warts too. When public programs are pushed as needed, rarely will the limitations of what might or can be achieved ever actually addressed, well except by critics who take a “see I told you so” approach. Money by itself will not achieve everything and there is a need to question how wisely, at times, it is being spent.

The focus here on William Buckley, Jr., his bigger-than-life image and Firing Line is to point out that together, the man and the show, contributed to a situation we have today where politics is often seen as either/or, not a coming together to work out of solutions to serious issues. It is incorrect to attribute the oftentimes silliness of TV-land’s liberal versus conservative non-debate where participants talk past each other more than directly talk to each solely to Buckley and Firing Line, but he did not help the situation. Many of the exchanges on Firing Line, debate does not seem like the correct word to use, were informative and enlightened, but a coming together where an audience might see walls crumbling just a little to understand how an appreciation of ideological opponents might actually lead to ideas borrowed from each other to suggest or create effective programs was not there.

Politics matters. To many it is word of disgust, yet it is the way we learn to live with each other. Politics is needed to provide some hope that difficult issues will not be avoided but attempts will be made to solve problems. We cannot just pick up our feelings and leave the field, believing that interactions with anyone we might consider opposed to our view, or values, can be easily ignored. Politics involves compromise, give-and-take, a search for reasonable and practical solutions. One book by two good reporters defined politics as, “[reflecting] the reality of the human condition: high ideals compromised by what is achievable.” Passion for one’s values and beliefs can always run high, but so do they on the other side. Thinking of politics as a search for some types of solutions to resolve some issues, at least helps to get passionate believers to transcend their insulate feelings and make an attempt at thinking about the common good.

There is a theatrical side to politics, showmanship that goes with appealing to supporters, while vilifying the opposition. But, at the same time, a “burn the bridge behind you” approach to thinking is of use to no one. In Up From Liberalism, Buckley criticized Eleanor Roosevelt as “a leading mouthpiece of contemporary Liberalism.” He then addresses whether Roosevelt would shake hands with Andei Vishinsky, who, at the time was head of the Soviet delegation to the United Nations. This era after the Second World War ended in 1945, led to the rise of the Cold War between the United States and the then Soviet Union and tensions ran high between both countries through the 1950’s. Buckley had the luxury of letting his principles guide his behavior, he could avoid shaking Vishinsky’s hand, Roosevelt in the position of a public official did not have that luxury.

Firing Line and What Could Have Been

In Buckley’s first book, God & Man at Yale, he asks “is a high national debt desirable?” Then he expresses his concern that in order to finance debt, where the government spends more than it is taking in through taxes (so deficit spending), government has to borrow money from the public. Think in terms of your grandmother buying you a $50 U.S. Saving Bond, that money goes to help the government pay for bills caused by deficit spending. Buckley’s concern is that foreigners will buy government bonds so the government becomes beholden to foreigners. As Buckley writes, “the government can forswear or circumvent bona fide obligations to its own citizens but must deal honestly with foreigners.”

The reason for bringing this up is because this became an issue during the Ronald Reagan Presidency. Buckley and Reagan became close. Reagan is listed as one of the early subscribers to the National Review, the magazine Buckley founded. In June 1962, 18 years before being elected President, Reagan wrote a letter to Buckley, “I’d be lost without National Review.” After Reagan was in the White House, he pushed and got a substantial tax cut, which led to a situation where revenue from taxes coming into the government fell and since government spending did not go down to compensate for the lost revenue this led to rising deficit spending. Japanese investors, among other foreigners, bought a great deal of those U.S. Savings Bonds your grandmother stuck in your birthday card (well actually called government securities). The concern expressed by Buckley in his book, had come to fruition.

In going through a catalog of Firing Line shows where this issue that concerned Buckley in 1952 was now a reality in the first years of the Reagan Presidency, it is not addressed. The tax cuts, which become law in Reagan’s first year as President, were addressed two years before his election since Representative Jack Kemp (R, NY) and Senator William Kemp (R, DE) pushed them prior to his Presidency. As it became clear that the Federal deficit was growing because of the tax cuts and no reduction in government spending, various episodes addressed Reagan economic policies, deficit spending and even the topic of whether there should be a balanced budget amendment. But, Buckley’s 1952 concern of foreigners buying our government securities is not among them. A lost opportunity to address a conservative policy that should have made any serious conservative feel uncomfortable was swept under the rug.

It is apparent that Buckley wanted conservative thinking to have some relationship to life around us. In Up From Liberalism he states, “No one is more tedious than the totally ideologized man, the man who forces every passing phenomenon into his ideological mold.” In discussing how he feels about Ayn Rand and her version of a form of conservative thought he refers to it as “ideological fabulism.” Individualism is of central concern to Rand but Buckley says “so many things grew out of that” as a way of questioning if anyone could clearly apply her thinking to anything real. With that thought in mind, Firing Line could have gone a long way toward showing how sides come together. Leaving an episode and feeling that two sides were well presented and on and equal footing, so respectful of each other, is a nostalgic memory when contrasted with Sean Hannity or Jeanine Pirro reaching levels of self-righteous outrage the second the opening credits to their shows end.

It is interesting that views of Buckley and his contribution to American political debate vary greatly. For example, one commentator wrote:

[H]is reputation as a political thinker was ludicrously undeserved. A question for Buckley’s admirers: Can you point to a single example of his attempting to take an opponent’s arguments seriously, to respond to an opponent’s arguments in their strongest version? Perhaps there’s an example of his having done so, but I’ve been unable to find it.

Another commentator saw Donald Trump as “Buckley’s Rightful Heir.” Still another praised Buckley for, “[his] great contributions…to conservatism was to move it toward the center. And one way he did that was to repudiate in a very forceful way what was then called the lunatic fringe.” Buckley, it should be noted, did not have kind words about Donald Trump. In 2000 he wrote of him:

Look for the narcissist. The most obvious target in today’s lineup is, of course, Donald Trump. When he looks at a glass, he is mesmerized by its reflection. If Donald Trump were shaped a little differently, he would compete for Miss America.

Abortion and What Could Have Been

Barry Goldwater, the Republican Presidential candidate in 1964 who Buckley idolized made a statement on abortion in 1993 when he was 84 which, certainly, Buckley must have cringed at if he heard it (not made on Firing Line):

I don’t think we should ever tamper with abortion. You’ll never stamp it out. It’s been in existence since the world began and it’s gonna be here when the world ends.

Buckley, for his part, made a rather odd statement about abortion in 1996. He said, “A lot of people think that abortion is a tactful way to limit the number of blacks who are born in the United States.” There is no indication that Buckley believed this but was expressing a view he believed was held by people he knew. As Buckley added, “I know a lot of WASPish people who won’t bring this up, but that’s what they’re thinking.”

Abortion was addressed on some 37 episodes of Firing Line, some of these shows focused in-depth on the topics (12), other just mentioned it is passing. In the first full show addressing abortion, Dr. Frank Ayd, a psychiatrist who Buckley refers to as “a prominent Catholic” who opposed abortion addressed Dr. Alan Guttmacher, an obstetrician who was President of the Planned Parenthood World Population Federation, “if you had any solid data which shows…that liberalization of…abortion laws…actually has in any way substantially reduced…illegal abortion…then you have a duty to present this.” When the Guttmacher spends time addressing how legal abortion has, in fact, reduced illegal abortions, Ayd is not convinced. Years after this show, the Guttmacher Institute released reports continuing to support the position of legal abortions reducing illegal and unsafe abortions. Guttmacher in his appearance on this episode of Firing Line cannot be easily classified as “pro-choice” in some absolute sense of the term. Guttmacher is careful to state he is opposed to abortion after 22 weeks of pregnancy. The position of Ayd where no matter what information is presented by Guttmacher, he managed to rationalize it away, addresses a broader issue of how do opposing sides come together to try to reach some understanding or compromise.

It is common to use the term “identity politics” where people are willing to be considered as part of a social class, sexual orientation, religious, ethical, racial, Second Amendment defender, environmentalist, or educational group. This feeling of being inclusive does not encourage the politics of give-and-take, of compromise. Elements of identity politics could be seen on Firing Line. Pragmatism can be seen as an ugly word when identity matters. There is always conflict between trying to get something done versus focusing more on the end result of what we idealistically desire.

In the early 1990’s, a public affairs TV show (not Firing Line) addressed a series of contentious topics from gun regulation, to energy policy, to abortion. On one particular show, abortion was addressed where the participants did not talk in absolutes about their positions as “pro-life” or “pro -choice” but addressed more nuanced and complex position. Guttmacher in his appearance on Firing Line was for abortion but then not for it after a certain point during a pregnancy. In this particular public affairs show, Kate Michelman, Executive Director of the National Abortion Rights League and Dr. John Willke, President of the National Right to Life Committee, both expressed opinions about wanting to reduce abortions. From this coming together, emerged an effort called Common Ground, how do abortion supporters work with those opposed to abortion. Around the country in different cities, often unaware of what was occurring in other cities, Common Ground organizations were emerging. One of the reasons for the end to this movement was the emergence of Identity Politics. Public opinion polls show that most Americans are caught in that vast middle ground where they favor abortion under some circumstances, but not so under others. Unfortunately, the either/or or us versus them approach to political dialogue, if it can be called that, dominates cable TV news so little to no attention is focused on seeking a common ground.

William Buckley’s ardent Catholicism might have gotten in the way of allowing him to approach abortion in a way where he could have nudged guests on Firing Line to take uncomfortable positions. In another episode which addressed an Abortion Reform Act passed by the House of Parliament in England, attention was focused on a conscience clause in the act and the discussion is about whether a doctor who tells a patient they cannot in good conscience perform an abortion should refer that patient to a doctor who will. Interestingly, in this episode the issue of illegal abortions is brought up. In the episode with Dr. Alan Guttmacher, the number of illegal abortions was referred to as between 200,000-1 million in the United States. In this episode the number of illegal abortions is referred to as between 40,000-200,000 in England per year. One guest states, “Nobody knows precisely, but they generally accept the figure as about 100,000 a year.”

Precise numbers in public policy situations are always difficult to easily pin down, something that TV news rarely, if ever, addresses, but policymakers are confronted with regularly. This issue of the number of illegal abortions matters in the sense that legalizing abortion was not seen as causing an explosion of abortions, as much as shifting abortions from illegal to legal.

Both the episode with Ayd and Guttmacher and the one on the English law predate the passage of Roe v. Wade in 1973. It would have been interesting to have seen a show that addressed the issue of whether legalizing abortion increased the number of abortions above a rate which was more than shifting from illegal to legal abortions. Firing Line had episodes addressing abortion in the late 1980s and early 1990s and it is difficult to see these episodes as advancing beyond earlier episodes regarding how abortion was discussed.

Switzerland allowed for abortion on request in a law passed in 2002, during the first twelve weeks of pregnancies. By 2011, the Swiss abortion rate was 6.8 per every 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 44. Contrast this is the United Kingdom at 17.5 per 1,000 women and the United States at 16. The Swiss abortion rate is seen as the lowest in the Western world. Sex education, the use of the RU-486 pill approved for use in Switzerland in 2002 and a reduction in unwanted pregnancies have contributed to this low abortion rate. Goldwater’s statement that “You’ll never stamp it out” notwithstanding, Switzerland has done a remarkable job of significantly reducing abortion. This is obviously not acceptable to those that want to stamp it out entirely but it reflects what pragmatic political thinking can achieve.

Regarding RU-486 pill, Buckley devoted an episode to discussing it. In his opening remarks he stated:

[T]he French government declared, with great Gaulic swash, that the pill once invented had become the moral property of all women and ordered that it be produced. In the United States the situation is exactly the opposite. The drug companies are disinclined to sell any new product relating to reproduction because of regulatory delays and the treat of lawsuits. The abortion pill is effectively banned here.

In this episode, Buckley returns to a position which permeated many of his conversations addressing abortion: When does life begin? Does it begin at the moment of intercourse so fertilization occurs or when conception takes place? Buckley, it is apparent sees life beginning at the moment of intercourse with fertilization. When his guest (Harriet Pilpel) begins to talk technical about RU-486, Buckley interrupts to state, “I think it’s very important first to know whether we’re talking about an abortifacient or whether we’re talking about a prophylactic.” In other words, Buckley wants it understood that no matter when the pill is taken, it will end life, even if that life is seen as unborn no matter how early in the pregnancy. How is it possible to advance to a position where politics as pragmatism can be achieved when theological thinking matters more? This is the difficulty of struggling with politics where there is a search for some pragmatic solutions to difficult issues.

It is difficult to define when life begins. Dr. Arthur Caplan, head of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University’s Langone Medical Center stated:

Many scientists would say they don’t know when life begins. There are a series of landmark moments. The first is conception, the second is the development of the spine, the third the development of the brain, consciousness, and so on.

In Up From Liberalism, Buckley addresses what he called “the silent generation.” This refers to situations on college campuses where, ”most students, I think have become dull in their political aspect.” Buckley has a view of politics where you stand on principles. He concludes that the problem on college campuses is that, “the large majority of students, angled as they are toward Liberalism, are silent, reflecting the great emptiness of their faith.” Principle is fine but since politics recognizes that you are not going to get everything that you want, when does compromise enter the picture? Democracy is based on politics. Germany during the time of Adolf Hitler or the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin could eliminate opposition and so no need to deal with the unpleasantness of pesky opponents, with legitimate opposing positions. Democracy requires a degree of tolerance for the opposition and that can be uncomfortable. Balancing principle and pragmatic thinking are difficult, unsettling, and , unfortunately, not part of Firing Line.

It is comforting to look back on Firing Line and have fond memories of a show which presented discussion in a way where complete thoughts and ideas could be developed. The show, however, did not provide an example of what is needed where opposing sides demonstrate how they come together to confront their own principles and modify them in ways to show politics as a hope for Democracy. The revival of Firing Line was not well received by all and indicates the climate of the times where politics is not seen in hopeful ways. One article that described the new version of the show, had a reader respond, “Fake conservative Margaret Hoover who strangely supports every liberal thing, will now try to deceive more people into thinking she is a conservative.” Where do we go from here? Politics provides a hope that has been present for centuries. Aristotle’s statement that man is a “political animal” and that politics is the “master science” need to be resurrected and popularized as a way of taking politics from a level of ridicule to respect.

What do you think? .