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

Nirvana

I can no more cease to write than you can stop breathing. It is my salvation. Writing is my path to Nirvana, where suffering has been extinguished, and complete peace is realized, if you believe that sort of thing. I'm not sure that I do, but it's a nice sentiment. For me, since I must work at doing something that fails to excite me in any meaningful way, I must search for my own meaning. Writing is the vehicle I use now. It used to be that my path lay with studying martial arts, but life changes, the body wearies. I suspect many of us, no, most of us, are in the same boat. We are trying to manage our lives the best we can while searching for Nirvana, our own private paradise, or however we might  describe it. Viktor Frankl wrote Man's Search for Meaning. He posits that our meaning is what we choose it to be and that meaning may change day to day. He said, "“Those who have a 'why' to live, can bear with almost any 'how'.” Following your passion ...

Authentic Living

How hard do you suppose it might be for someone to suddenly adopt an existential life style of living authentically? The idea of freely choosing one’s own purpose, deciding what is meaningful, living one’s life on one’s own terms with no thought of what others may think nor any thought given as to how this choice of living will affect them, must surely be a costly venture. Can it be done without tearing apart relationships? Should that really even be a consideration? To be what many would consider a non-conformist, to have autonomy over one’s own life, is to transcend socialization, to resist the allure and not be seduced by what is essentially the easy ways of a conformist. But at what cost? Should it give one pause to consider, before embarking on a life of free choices, to live by your own standards, to do what you will, when you will it, and how you will it to be done, what the consequences will be on those we love? Aren’t such people, who choose to live so freely, reviled r...

On Being Heard

Is it me or does anyone else think they are not being heard? Doesn't it seem that these days folks don't  listen to what you are saying and instead they prepare a response even while you are still speaking?  I don't know about you but I find this frustrating. This behaviour is sometimes accompanied by the person you are talking with editorializing every few sentences you make which causes you to lose your train of thought. And of course, with the ubiquitous mobile phone, it is hard to tell if the person you are talking with is even listening, they are too busy checking something on FaceBook. But that is not so much an issue of a difference in linguistic styles as it is more about plain bad manners. My linguistic style can be passionate and animated especially if I am talking about something important to me. I don't know if it's my age or if I am not as mentally strong as I should be, but constant editorializing greatly distracts me. I also think that when I am i...