Leading the Way to Ideas

On February 27, conservatives lost an icon – arguably, the founder of the modern conservative movement, and the “scourge of liberalism.”  More importantly, however, America lost, in William F. Buckley, was a great American thinker, who, from an age not more advanced than our own, began to shape the intellectual, cultural, and political dialogue of this country.

The list of Buckley’s achievements is long and impressive: writer of 50 books and 5,600 newspaper columns; founder of National Review; the longest running single-host television program; and the genesis of the conservative movement that influenced Barry Goldwater and Ronal Reagan.

While not all of Buckley’s writings and ideas sit well with this author – he was famous for his dislike of rock music – he certainly is one example of an American who shaped the country not as a politician, with legislation, but as a writer, with words and ideas.

Clearly, such human beings are rare; to wonder when the next William F. Buckley will come around is probably an enormous waste of time.  By all accounts, he was one of a kind.  Nevertheless, each generation produces its own share of great leaders and thinkers.  If the middle part of the 20th century spawned Buckley’s brand of reasoned, impassioned conservatism, what does the future hold for our own generation, and how will the political and intellectual climate of today affected that future?  Is there room in today’s intellectual and political environment for such a brash new vision to burst onto the scene?

In a column some weeks ago, the Associate Editor of this publication, Mike Warren, wrote for The Hustler "conservatism needs a new intellectual leader in the vein of Buckley” who “must continue the fight WFB began.”  Warren accurately points out that we exist in a different time and under a different set of circumstances than Buckley did, and that those differences have seemingly affected the search for a new leader like Buckley. “For the ideas of conservatives to ignite the public once again,” says Warren, “we need a leader to rise above it all and start teaching (and re-teaching) the rest of us.”

Predictions about generational trends for the future are probably impossible to achieve with any degree of accuracy, but that hasn’t stopped this publication from attempting them in the past.  As my last column as Editor-in-Chief, I’d like to continue the discussion raised by Warren and differ from my usual role by offer more questions than answers.  We hear often from those older than us that, as college students, we are the leaders of tomorrow.  So, what kind of leaders will we become? How will our current political and intellectual environment shape the ideas of tomorrow?

First of all, there is a growing disparity between the celebrity of some politicians and the relative obscurity of others.  Not until the 1970s were presidential candidates regularly scheduled to debate each other, and during no other time have politicians been given the “rock star” treatment like they are today.  The allure and scope of the public eye—be it in business, government, or some other field—is great.  Will tomorrow’s leaders forego its celebrity for a behind-the-scenes role in crafting the thought that will drive a movement? 

Additionally, for the most part, speeches are written for the sound-byte, not the message.  Blogs are just as much entertainment as they are news or commentary.  Certainly, they have helped create a new kind of debate, that is called intellectual by some and merely noise by others.  Would God and Man at Yale have the same impact if it were written as a daily blog?  Would it even be heard, in the sea of other voices out on the Internet?  The blogosphere has given a voice to anyone with a computer and an Internet connection, but have even the most clear, most articulate voices been lost in the process?

More specifically, the political climate for conservatives has shifted notably away from a traditional conservative viewpoint to a more neoconservative stance, leaving many old-line conservatives—or young people who share those views—without a party to call their own.  For example, Buckley famously denounced the Iraq war – something rare in today’s Republican party.  Yet this is indicative of a growing trend in American politics—each party seems to be more and more defined by what the other party’s platform is not, rather than by a core set of beliefs and ideas.  Whether or not the debates between John McCain and either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama result in verbal sparring over who is ready now, or who flip-flopped on what issue, or rather focuses on why the fundamental values of the other side are misguided, will certainly reveal a lot about the nature of political dialogue today.  How much have we lost by succumbing to a 24-hour news cycle in which town hall gaffes are more important than the values and fundamental ideas supporting a candidate’s platform?  How will the leaders of tomorrow be able to filter through the media’s omnipresence to make their ideas known and understood?

In a recent Wall Street Journal editorial, Benjamin Manaster reflects on the age of John McCain, and how “a society that views the tempering of time as an infirmity is a society in trouble.”  Buckley started his career as a young man, but he remained relevant until the day he died, and his ideas will continue to remain relevant long after his death.  When presidential candidates are dismissed, today, for being “too old,” is our nation losing valuable experience that is not easily gained all over again by a younger generation.  Just because someone is old doesn’t mean they are right, but one wonders what the effect on the thinkers of tomorrow will be when we today discard ideas not because they are wrong, but merely because they are old.  We have embraced an atmosphere that loves scandals, and almost requires a new one every week, to keep us interested in political debate.  Is the wisdom of our elders, and the fundamental, concrete new ideas of younger generations, enough to keep our interest?

All of these questions are really worthless in the face of real life—they are impossible to know the answers to now.  However, they are hopefully useful in provoking some thought regarding the atmosphere that today’s growing thinkers reside in, and how it will shape thought for the next generation.  As Editor-in-Chief, I’ve certainly learned the power cultural changes can have over political dialogue and thought.  Today’s generation would be wise to look to the Buckley generation for the inspiration of ideas.