[lbo-talk] WFB, again

[John Thornton]

Jerry Monaco wrote:
> Buckley was racist, sexist, homophobic, a militarist, and extremely
> anti-worker.  He was insulted by anyone who questioned privilege.  As far a
> I know he never apologized for supporting segregation, or for in fact
> believing that Jim Crow was a good thing in his youth.  In short he was a
> model intellectual.  Why would anyone admire him at all?  He was
> occasionally amusing and if he could have done stand up on the page the way
> that Christopher does, at least I would say he earned his living.
>
> Questions: Why should anyone on the left pretend he was anything but a bad
> influence on U.S. intellectual culture?  Why should anyone admire him in any
> way whatsoever?  He was also bad for intellectual Catholicism.
>
> P.S.
> Buckey's  spy novels were the worse of the genre and I have read them all. I
> am glutton for spy novels.

I don't see him as an intellectual. He was a pompous pseudo-intellectual.
The gift of an expansive vocabulary along with a certain level of polish 
does not make WFB an intellectual.
What original idea did the man ever have? What insight did he show into 
anything?
He's an expert on no subject other than name dropping as far as I can tell.

As an ex-Catholic I believe Catholicism itself would be bad for 
intellectual Catholicism so I'm uncertain how much damage WFB could do 
in this area.

I've never read a spy novel so I'll defer to your appraisal of his work.

I'll make my first toast this evening to the immediate improvement in US 
culture with WFB's passing!

John Thornton