If Buckley's legacy has been exaggerated, it is only because he had a disproportionate influence on today's political commentators and enthusiasts.

In addition to sharing Posner's skepticism about the truth-value of any given religion, I totally agree with Posner that William F Buckley's supposed influence is grossly exagerrated. I never met him in person, but to me he came off as a kind of pompous know-it-all, which turned me off as a young adult (I admit I was geek for watching "firing-line" as an adolescent, probably not his target audience). With respect to JS Mill and the convention liberal platitude of "my rights ending where nose begins", this formula is of no avail on solving real-world conflicts which -- as Coase noted in his famous social cost paper -- are "reciprocal in nature". I won't go any further here since that is the subject of a book-length project I am working on. But suffice it say that -- to use an example of my beloved prof guido calabresi -- to protect silence lovers we must impose a harm on noise lovers. So the real question is not so much who harms who, but which harm-producing activity can be modified at least cost

I think we have to remember that, whatever the quality of conservative or libertarian ideas, if you don't have someone to spin them and get rid of leftist intertia (like Buckley), you're gonna have a very hard time getting any ideas across. Coming from Australia, I can say that an intellectual battle (known as the 'history wars') has been waged for over a decade now. Leftists have been driven back to their intellectual caves, but there was only one real leader for the right-wing side: our (recently deposed) Prime Minister John Howard. Public intellectuals work in an environment deprived of quality, evidence or diversity of opinion, and finding someone to challenge the orthodoxy is extremely rare (out of 21 million people our guy had to balance this with his Prime Ministerial responsibilities). So I think that, whether or not he really understood market economics, and whether or not you agree with his opinions, it is sad to see a conservative like Buckley pass away. A conservative or libertarian public intellectual is a very rare and special thing.

My understanding of John Stuart Mill is that he did not believe that "people have a moral entitlement... to engage in any and all conduct that does not create a palpable harm to other people." Mill was a utilitarian, but he explicitly renounces in On Liberty any independent utility for liberty -- his support of the harm principle is based on his views of its relatively beneficent consequences: “Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.”

My understanding of John Stuart Mill is that he did not believe that "people have a moral entitlement... to engage in any and all conduct that does not create a palpable harm to other people." Mill was a utilitarian, but he explicitly renounces in On Liberty any independent utility for liberty -- his support of the harm principle is based on his views of its relatively beneficent consequences: “Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.”

Judge Posner:

Shouldn’t “ began in the Clinton Administration and expanded in the Reagan ..”
read “began in the Carter Administration and expanded in the Reagan … “?

"However, the stagflation of the 1970s exposed the failure of conventional “liberal” (in the welfare-state sense) policies..."

Professor Becker, thank you for your insightful post. I'm curious as to this specific line though...I'm no economist and have very little background in understanding the effect of various policies. Perhaps the economic community has pounded this issue repeatedly and has firm conclusions as to the cause of stagflation in the 1970's. My question is this:

What was the effect of non-socially liberal policies on creating the stagflation, such as the prolonged Vietnam war, and the oil embargo? Was the stagflation totally the result of welfare policies? Does spending on military, war, or costs spread across the board on energy NOT effect the economy from a stagflation standpoint?

If we were to spend our money today on providing an expanded medicare and health care coverage for everyone up to 18 years of age, and not on a war in Iraq, would this have a more detrimental impact leading towards stagflation than our current spending arrangements? Does it depend on the amount of dollars spent? Or are the allocations and subsequent economic calculations set up so that military spending and does not have the detrimental impact?

This essay covers a lot of recent history and territory. My first introduction to Buckley came as a junior high school student who stumbled upon him pontificating on some topic on television at a friends house. My initial response at the time was, man!, this guy uses a lot of polysyllables (big words) and not only that, he talks funny. Some would say "erudite", but I still think he talked funny. Anyway, the desire to play a quick game of pickup baseball at the school yard won the day. Sorry Bill. BTW, a copy of the National Review's rhetoric for writers, "The Art of Persausion", sits close at hand in the bookshelf by my desk. He may have had more of an impact on the Nation's children and education than was thought. Though I still prefer Mencken.

As for the likes of Joe McCarthy, he was Wisconsin's gift to America. At the time he was the driver of the biggest "Bandwagon" in town. I would put him in the same category as P.T.Barnum with his Greatest Show on Earth (unfortunately a lot of people got hurt). In the end though, large numbers of suspected Liberals and Commies, both real and imagined were purged from the government. I'm surprised he didn't go after Eisenhower.

Posner writes:
"Modern conservatism, to the extent that it is a coherent movement, combines free-market economics (to a degree) with political and social conservatism (tough on crime, strong on national defense, friendly to religion, critical of liberal social values, hostile to trial lawyers and judicial activism). It was not a movement created by Buckley, able journalist and polemicist though he was."

If Buckley didnt create this synthesis, he created the magazine, National Review, where it was expounded by Frank Meyer in 1959, and he at least gave it a forum for articulation. This task was ideological, journalistic and political in ways that Posner under-rates, mainly because he doesnt share the enthusiasms of the whole coalition. Pity, because Posner as a free market libertarian owes much of such successful reforms to those political leaders, like Reagan and Gingrich, who did. He admits that indirectly; there is not a majority for free markets; the coalition is a political one, not ideological, which together can be a political majority. Buckley was indespensible to modern conservative movement precisely because he made that improbable union look natural and inevitable through his passion and articulation.

Buckley was one of the great "connectors" (tipping point reference) whose contribution was as much to bring to the fore the genius of others who could play a role in that free-market anti-communist traditional values synthesis. Buckley was not an economist, let alone a great economist like Hayek or Freidman, but he was friends with both, and he gave them avenues for preaching the free-market gospel to the conservative 'base' via "Firing Line". It was through Buckley that I first heard of, read and got to appreciate Hayek; I suspect many more learned of Hayek through Buckley's avenues of popularization than learnt of him in graduate economics seminars.

I could cite other causes, groups, or individuals where Buckley had a part in 'stirring the pot'. His enthusiasms were wide-ranging and his journalistic output prodigious. Perhaps some oped writers who were under Buckley's wing over-estimate his influence, but Posner has managed to do the opposite.

I think you overlook a great Buckley contribution--he made it fun to listen to conservative ideas. Milton Friedman had some of this too. Can you imagine the author of The Road to Serfdom hosting Firing Line?

Ha ! Shaum your "questions" are so incisive that I think you are too modest and have a very good idea of the answers; let's see if we agree:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

"However, the stagflation of the 1970s exposed the failure of conventional “liberal” (in the welfare-state sense) policies..."

jjj.... This unsupported clinker caught my ear as well.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What was the effect of non-socially liberal policies on creating the stagflation, such as the prolonged Vietnam war, and the oil embargo? Was the stagflation totally the result of welfare policies? Does spending on military, war, or costs spread across the board on energy NOT effect the economy from a stagflation standpoint?

........... hmmmmm you noticed? Then as now the war was bleeding us economically. It's NOT a coincidence that Nixon had to either devalue the dollar or take us off the "gold standard" and let it........ try to float. Well, in terms of oil, gold, silver and R/E it sank. Then, as today, soaring oil prices (or shrivelled dollars? As today?) unleashed cost-push inflation.

Then, as today, our Fed Reserve responded to cost push inflation as if it were demand pull inflation and dramatically tightened money. Tight money and continued inflation, of course, pushed up interest rates; bankers and others like to get a return that's above the rate of inflation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If we were to spend our money today on providing an expanded medicare and health care coverage for everyone up to 18 years of age, and not on a war in Iraq, would this have a more detrimental impact leading towards stagflation than our current spending arrangements?

jjj.... Look around? The nations NOW spending money on comprehensive health care for all "under the age of 120" are enjoying strengthening currencies and balance sheets that do not include $700 billion in trade deficits. In short? No. But truth IS we are burdened down with spending nearly twice what the civilized nations spend on healthcare plus the hefty costs of the "war".

The US did not learn the lesson when it was presented to us in the early 70's and with "cheap and abundant oil" we've gone on as wastefully as you can see by looking at the mix of "autos" on our highways and use far more oil per unit of GDP than the EU and all other countries, so............... it's fairly predictable that high oil prices will impact the US economy much harder than in the nations that have had energy demand dampening policies in place for decades.

Toss in FLAT and declining wages leaving zipnada for discretionary spending and their you have it; a fine recipe for the dreaded stagflation.

Ha! Congress is discussing what to DO about it. But, instead of having a surplus or even a low national debt that could have been accumulated in the better times, they've little with which to use to spur the economy and tacking pump priming spending onto the already huge debt to be passed on to the next generation is a strong argument against federal spending.

It's all something of a shame as we DO need to spend heavily on the repair of highways and other public infrastructure and these projects gin up job creation at all levels and in many disciplines.

In addition to the list of bridge repairs etc, a recent (Atlantic) article mentions $80 billion per year being lost due to traffic delays. But do we dare to tackle a trillion worth of delayed maintenance with the costs of the senseless warmongering and atop the massive DEBT as interest on the debt IS our fastest growing obligation?

With some 10% of the workforce either unemployed, "out of the work force" or "marginally employed", I'd venture we should get on with it as surely it's better to have even more debt and have the asset of a modern infrastructure than to wallow in stagflation with ten percent of our people enduring the joblessness and low pay that is NOT going to re-fill our Federal coffers.

End the war, invest the money in the US, lead by example, carry a big stick but use it rarely?

Ahh... the battle lines are drawn. Will it be a Conservative Supply-Side solution, or the Liberal Keynesian solution? Perhaps the best solution is to determine which side has the most light poles on its side.

Instead of defining the "best" economic system based on political ideology, perhaps we ought too return and study the analyses of Freidrich List in the "National System" or Henry Carey's in "The Harmony of Interests, Agricultural, Manufacturing, and Commercial".

It is doubtful much viable change will happen. It's much more fun to drive up and down the streets in the bandwagon drumming up support and taking control of the light poles.

Just more dominant ideas of the dominant class.

The Soviet Union failed therefore Hayek was correct about self-regulating markets?

Meanwhile, markets have failed again. And only Government interventionism will once more save them.

I know Buckley did not support civil rights legislation but is that so disreputable as Posner and Becker imply? I read once an old piece published in NR about race and civil rights and it more or less endorsed the white supremacy line, which is what I think Posner and Becker mean to associate to Buckley himself.

I have not, however, ever seen anything Buckley he himself wrote along these lines. Maybe it's out there. Could somebody provide a link or quotation? Lots of people opposed civil rights legislation for sound and principled reasons, so I'm assuming Becker and Posner have described his views on civil rights as "repugnant" and "disreputable" because they have something more concrete in mind.

I used to be a weekly reader and occasional commenter on this blog. I really enjoyed how most of the time Becker and Posner would respond to their commenters each week. Why did they decide to stop with that interactive approach? Besides this minor gripe, the blog remains excellent.

Neil, I've lived through several eras in which each medicine might be prescribed. In the mid-60's with a roaring economy employing ALL of our productive assets it seemed wise to incent "supply side" investment to spur the building of additional capacity. Even then, it's not a clear case as with ALL working with about as much overtime as anyone would want; who would build the additional capacity no matter what federal incentives were available?

In recent years, we've NO capacity problems and where they MIGHT pop up either a new immigrant, and H1B Visa or offshoring the whole project solves the problem. Thus, "supply side" (trickle down) is fruitless as what is needed is more consumer demand for the surplus goods of the global economy. I GUESS, even Bernanke and Congress have finally gotten the message and are planning to knock down token amounts of ripe fruit in hopes of spurring demand.

Better, of course, for both demand, as well as more accurately deploying productive assets would have been wages of median and below rising in concert with the rising tide of productivity increases. Balance and timing is everything in dance, music and running an economy.

In the grand scheme of things, I wonder if Judge Posner would even be sitting on the Seventh Circuit (as opposed to being a full-time law professor) were it not for WFB, Jr.

Jack, The "trickle down" is a misnomer, it's more like "trickle out". As for that increased amount of money in the system, either through the Fed. Reserve or a tax give back by Congress, It's going to leave the country through either increased oil costs or foreign products that dominate the market place. In the end it will just leave the Nation a little poorer and less able to cope economically.

Have you heard, the U.S. can no longer produce enough small arms ammunition to supply it's forces in Iraq or Afganistan and has had to let a 300 million dollar contract out to Korea to produce it? That's probably got Hamilton rolling over in his grave.

http://www.grim-games.com/forum

http://www.grim-games.com/forum

Correction for my previous post...I mistakenly thought this was Prof. Becker's entry.

Jack, I think we are in agreement, but you have a much clearer idea of what is going on. Nice post.

Posner is caricaturing Buckley. For instance, he claims that Buckley supported a "bellicose, even militaristic" opposition to the Soviet Union, but that is a gross oversimplification. Buckley certainly did not support a preempitve strike on our adversary--as Posner implies--but wanted the United States to take a more assertive approach in the Cold War.

"Apart from his libertarian streak, Buckley's policy positions were not, for the most part, sound," Posner tells us. And he goes on to sight Buckley's support for Joe McCarthy 50 years ago. But Posner seems unaware that Buckley renounced McCarthy, saying many times that the man "did more harm than good." Again, Buckley's position here was much subtler than Posner sees. Buckley thought that the cause of ridding the government of the likes of Alger Hiss and Julius and Ethel Rosenburg was a noble one, but that McCarthy pursued that cause with an unforgivable recklesness, in part due to alcoholism.

Really, Judge Posner should know more about the people he chooses to criticize. Gary Becker's post was much more insightful and much fairer to the man. Buckley was not scholar on a par with Friedman or Hayek, but like them he did a great deal to persuade other intellectuals that socialism was a serious threat to our liberty and resulted only in the degradation of man.

"sight" should read "cite", of course, in my post above.

Without Buckley, there would have been no Goldwater candidacy. Without Goldwater, there would have been no Reagan. Without Reagan, it's possible Jimmy Carter would have been re-elected. I won't continue the line of thought, as I think Buckley's value is now established.

rwe--Posner has made a habit of this. Remember when Milton Friedman died? Posner confessed that he hadn't read much of Friedman's work, and then launched into a largely critical discussion of the great man.

The more I read the obituaries Posner writes, the angrier I get.

Neil and Shaun, thanks and good point Neil that efforts to spur are less effective due to the leakage to nations that make our stuff, supply our oil, and increasingly, supply us with LNG.

I think the US multiplier effect was about 4 and in Alaska I think we figure about 2 because it so much goes to goods that are shipped in and the money leaves the state. Still, so far, our trade deficits are less than 7% of GDP so perhaps our leaky boat can still make another crossing. It is high time though for us to either increase our means or ........... learn to live within our means. Even after the stock market rally, today the buck made a new low against the Euro.

Neil and Shaun, thanks and good point Neil that efforts to spur are less effective due to the leakage to nations that make our stuff, supply our oil, and increasingly, supply us with LNG.

I think the US multiplier effect was about 4 and in Alaska I think we figure about 2 because it so much goes to goods that are shipped in and the money leaves the state. Still, so far, our trade deficits are less than 7% of GDP so perhaps our leaky boat can still make another crossing. It is high time though for us to either increase our means or ........... learn to live within our means. Even after the stock market rally, today the buck made a new low against the Euro.

AW, it's just amazing how Posner misses the larger point. Bringing up McCarthy again? After all these years, and after Buckley confessed, many times, to having misjudged the man.

Above all, Buckley was trying to make three central points: 1) That in general free enterprise offers both liberty and prosperity, and is therefore a much better system than the alternatives; 2) That Soviet Communism ought to be vigorously opposed, not placated or appeased and 3) That the cutural and moral relativism that had taken hold of the left in the 1960's was corrosive, and that the liberal social policies that flowed from that relativism (like leniency toward criminals) were socially destructive. And he has been proven right on all three.

Buckley was not origninal in the way that Friedman, for example, was. But he offered a crucial intellectual synthesis of ideas that were already in the air that was pretty coherent and persuasive. I don't agree, then, that it's hyperbole to say that Buckley provided the intellectual synthesis that made people take conservatism seriously again as an intellectual movement.

Buckley and Friedman paved the way for Ronald Reagan to come to power. What had seemed to most people so extreme in 1964 gradually seemed more reasonable, as conservative(and libertarian)intellectuals exposed the intellectual weaknesses of modern liberalism, and its empirical failings became increasingly obvious.

In all thsi Buckley played a major role. I'm looking right now at a book on the rise of American conservatism by some folks at the Economists. Gary Becker is in it, and Buckley is ubiquitous. I don't see Judge Posner mantioned at all.

Just a quick note. William F. Buckley was extremely important to me. I can't speak for the grand scheme of things.

At one time, the only path to conservative thought for a youngster growing up in the mid-west went through William F. Buckley and started with his TV show, Firing Line. This led to National Review. From that point on, perhaps he was not so important. For me, there was no other possible portal of entrance to the rhetoric and philosophy of the right.

Jack, I like that analogy to a leaking ship. The only difference is, all the ships I've been on, have built in and automatic bilge systems to pump out and dump the leakage overboard. Unlike the Economy. And the Trade Deficit is now what?

Excellent post. Buckley was a skilled polemicist, and an entertaining and no doubt intelligent individual, but he was no great thinker. He made lots of blunders - civil rights, McCarthy - and is generally overrated.

What a tasteless, inane post. The gratuitous history of economic enlightenment may serve in some sense to frame the bloggers place in their autobiographical account of history. Buckley's conservativism, by contrast, converted many to the belief that limited government best serves the interests of personal freedom and economic progress. And people actually understood the message in measurable numbers - which is a notable accomplishment when compared to the solipsimal musings of economists. As for the "media mentions", being unfamiliar with the context, I can only say that such a measure of relevance would of late put Mr. Spitzer in high regard. The metric, while valued perhaps by the neglected, should hold little positive value to intelligent readers.

好秘书 中国呼吸网 肿瘤网 中国皮肤网 癌症康复网 工作总结 个人工作总结 半年工作总结 年终工作总结 单位工作总结 教师工作总结 教学工作总结 学校工作总结 德育工作总结 财务工作总结 医务工作总结 安全工作总结 乡镇工作总结 党员工作总结 团委工作总结 公司工作总结 实习工作总结 班主任工作总结 党支部工作总结 办公室工作总结 学生会工作总结 总结报告 工作报告 政府报告 述职报告 述廉报告 考察报告 自查报告 情况报告 调研报告 调查报告 申请报告 辞职报告 实习报告 验收报告 评估报告 汇报体会 工作汇报 思想汇报 汇报材料 情况通报 情况汇报 心得体会 学习心得 工作心得 培训心得 读后感 发言致辞 发言稿 开业开幕 领导讲话 动员讲话 庆典致辞 节日致词 新春致词 晚会致辞 追悼词 节目游戏 毕业致辞 思想宣传 组织人事 晚会主持词 会议主持词 婚礼主持词 常用书信 表扬信 感谢信 倡议书 责任书 承诺书 检讨书 申请书 保证书 决心书 悔过书 建议书 慰问信 邀请函 条据书信 礼仪文书 贺电贺词 社交礼仪 个人礼仪 商务礼仪 职场礼仪 涉外礼仪 饮食礼仪 节日礼仪 婚庆礼仪 鲜花礼仪 其他礼仪 交际礼仪 秘书 呼吸机 氧气机 婉转的夜曲 淋过雨的空气 带著一根烟.浪迹天涯

When all is said and done, Buckley will have been far a more influential person than Posner--though I'm sure this overinflated, pompous judge will never understand that.

A few more things.

Posner says the outpouring of praise for Buckley was "surprising." How could that be surprising to anyone who knew anything of Buckley's influence, who knew anything about the esteem in which Buckley was held? This is just like when Posner said that the strong and widespread opposition to his position on immigration was "surprising." Posner gets surprised about things that are very obvious to so many of the rest of us. The man is simply out of touch. Hopefully a few more "surprises" will deflate that massive ego of his, by showing him that maybe he doesn't know as much as he thinks.

As for containment being a better policy than rollback--gee, now which approach was it that actually worked? Could someone remind me? You know, hindsight is supposed to be 20/20. How do you get hindsight wrong?

But of all the nauseating, jaw-droppingly ignorant things Posner says here, by far the worst is his statement that he doubts Buckley was a formidable intellectual. If you're not even going to concede that much (or, rather, that little), then there's no reason anyone should take you seriously.

But of all the nauseating, jaw-droppingly ignorant things Posner says here, by far the worst is his statement that he doubts Buckley was a formidable intellectual.

Buckley was not a great intellectual. He was a great advocate for his political cause, and a quick-witted and articulate speaker and writer. But he was more a promoter of ideas than a creator of them. Whatever his contributions, they did not include any notable intellectual advances.

According to the dictionary, an intellectual (or man of letters) is "a man who is devoted to literary or scholarly pursuits." Sounds like Buckley to me.

As a twenty-seven year old, Buckley was before my time. But since I have been hearing about him now that he is dead, I looked at some of his matierial. Although I do not agree with alot of what he said and he seemed rather pompous at times, I have alot of respect for him because he was an outspoken individual who was not afraid to flex his cerebral muscles. In fact, watching Buckley is a breath of fresh air in our modern, dumbed down environment.

(For some comic relief, here is a link to a clip wherein he threatens to smack Gore Vidal:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRjZR8j4-z4

Yes, AW, you're quite right. One should never, ever, speak ill of the dead. In that spirit, I have composed the following poem:

Here lies the bones of old Will

Wise, Pious, Humble, and more still

Who of Life told us all how we should think and live it

Let that be said - and God forgive it

---freely adapted (read stolen) from Ambrose Bierce---

"a man who is devoted to literary or scholarly pursuits."

Buckley was devoted primarily to political activity - to the advancement of a set of political ideas. He was not a scholar. His literary activities consisted of writing some spy novels, which may be entertaining - I don't know - but he was hardly devoted to literary pursuits.

So Richard, you really don't think that the policy movements after the failure of the "War on Poverty" had anything to do with the ideological foundation Buckley almost single-handedly laid? That is preposterous. If conservatism wasn't a growing and well-articulated set of political and economic philosophies they would have never developed the political power to reverse failed liberal approaches. Buckley is more responsible for this coherence than anyone else.

Evan, In the end, the issue is not dependent on whether the position is "coherent" or "incoherent". The only issue is its success or failure in its policy initiatives. What difference does it make when we are now stuck with a failed conservative approach as opposed to a failed liberal approach? Just remember, "truth" lies in its practical consequences and results.

Wow, STRONG reactions to this post. Thanks Judge Posner. I have never thought of you as being pompous or inflated, maybe a snob about higher education ... anyway for Buckley to rank 20 in your book "Public Intellectuals" pretty much sums it up ... Buckley was up there with Kissinger and others. I always liked to watch him raise and lower his eyebrows, cross and uncross his legs, take off his glasses and toss them around...