Skip to main content

QUALITY OF INTELLECTUAL DEBATE

I just watched, for the second time, a documentary called Best of Enemies, the debates in 1968 between William F. Buckley Jr. on the right and Gore Vidal on the left. The debates were part of a new truncated coverage of the 1968 primaries by ABC which did not have the budget to compete with the gavel to gavel coverage the other two major stations, CBS and NBC, could manage.

The familiar lines were drawn, the right was the party of the greedy and heartless, and the left represented the lazy and the decadent. But this was the first time the coverage drew upon drama created between two iconic advocates from the respective sides.

Buckley was the darling of the conservative movement; in fact, he founded it and the magazine, the National Review. Later, in coming out for Reagan, he was regarded as a kingmaker.

Vidal was the popular author of many historical fictions beginning in 1948 but is most famously remembered for the novel Myra Breckinridge. Vidal’s social commentary was wrapped in sexuality and made the point that homosexuality was as natural in nature as heterosexuality, a position that ruffled the feathers of Mr. Buckley and certainly pushed the envelope in the literary world though the book was made into a movie starring Raquel Welch.

Stepping back to that time and viewing the coverage and the controversy was enlightening. Much the same issues were being discussed then as they are today, race, income inequality and war. But the format, while commonplace now, was innovative back then. What struck me as singular was that both men were intellectuals possessing great command of language.

Of the many quips, I most enjoyed William Buckley’s response to Arte Johnson’s question on what looked like a segment of Rowan and Martin’s Laugh-In. Arte observed that audiences only ever saw Mr. Buckley seated during interviews and debates and wondered was that because he had difficulty thinking on his feet. Mr. Buckley’s response was that he did have difficulty standing because of the immense weight he carried on his shoulders from all that he knew.

Of course, Gore Vidal made dazzling points and was himself, well prepared with one liners like don’t point your tongue at me keep it in your cheek, and Mr. Buckley is on the right but often wrong.

The real fireworks came near the end of the debate regarding the brutality of the Chicago PD toward members of the press and the thousands of demonstrators and the rights to freedom of assembly and of speech. Buckley defended the police and Vidal the protestors. Vidal, being interrupted by Buckley, quipped the only crypto-Nazi here is yourself, to which Buckley infamously retorted, “Listen, you queer, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I’ll sock you in the goddamned face and you’ll stay plastered!”

Regardless of political affiliation, I think it worth noting the objectivity with which moderator Howard K. Smith conducted himself and the decorum with which he performed his task.
The use of language by both William Buckley Jr. and Gore Vidal was dazzling, elevating, and educational. The deftness with which William Buckley Jr. could dissect an argument was a treat to watch even without agreeing with him. And Gore Vidal could mount an attacking argument and push forth with vim and verve. It is this, I miss about the media and for that matter, though I would rail against conformity and oppression, it is something I miss in society.

Unfortunately, Mr. Buckley’s momentary lapse of decorum caused by Gore Vidal’s trap to unmask the true feelings hidden beneath his opponent’s veneer of gentility has combined with the network’s then novel format and produced over the years, the low level of intellectual carnival barking punditry we are now subjected to nightly.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

ON THE CUSP OF A RADICAL PARADIGM SHIFT

It has been a long time since I last wrote in this blog. I have been busy with music projects and writing novels. In fact, I am writing my ninth novel right now and am just taking a break. I wanted to get back into keeping up with my blog but didn't want  it to become a format for political rants. Let's be frank, the political landscape is abysmal and folks have never been so divided and so entrenched in their views. I am no exception! Rather than regurgitate the dogma and doctrine of one party over the other, I am guided by the tenets I have long adhered to: democracy, equality under the law, opportunity, justice and a strong social safety net. I welcome diversity in all forms. I believe we should all be accountable and responsible for our actions. Worker's rights, women's rights, these are important to me as basic human rights. Income inequality is a huge issue. Of course, captains of industry deserve the right to have the largest piece of the pie. T

POSTURE

It is acceptable in martial arts to adopt any particular kamae, or “posture,” as an expression of one’s self in an artistic or stylistic manner provided it is a sound stratagem in and of itself or that the individual is so adept at the posture it makes her effective in a self-defence scenario.  In many cases, a particular kamae or posture signals the style of martial art the person has studied. The straight up posture, fists clenched, arms out and slightly bent, legs in a wide stance could indicate a karate practitioner. Arms up, away from the body, palms toward the opponent, might mean a Muay Thai fighter. The various forms of Kung Fu, indicating the Tiger, the Dragon or the Praying Mantis are distinguished by their exotic postures, and so on. How we present ourselves in daily life and in a non-martial context gives people hints about ourselves. Whatever way we present ourselves can be considered our kamae, our posture.  This begs the questions, just how does the world perc

AESTHETIC DISTANCE

I love films. I have always loved films. In high school during the very early seventies, I was able to take a film arts course along with English courses, media and communications. I loved it. Film is art. The famous MGM logo with the lion’s roar that prefaces so many famous movies incorporates the Latin, “ARS GRATIA ARTIS” which means “art for art’s sake,” and was designed in 1916 by Howard Dietz. The saying is credited to the 19th century French philosopher, Victor Cousin and was written as “l’art pour l’art.” One of the basic lessons I learned in film arts was the concept of aesthetic distance.  This concept originally applied to literature refers to the gap between the readers, or as in the case of film, the viewer’s conscious reality and the fictional reality constructed by an author of a book or the director of the film.  Of course, in film there are so many more variables to be considered, actor’s craft, lighting, cinematography, music et cetera.