Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Buckley and Chomsky Debate

The issues of the 1969 debate between William F. Buckley and Noam Chomsky remain relevant today. The stark difference between then and now is the general lack of  intellect as demonstrated by these men. And without hesitation I will say the comment applies equally to the opposing sides of the political spectrum.

What is most startling is the Conservative Movement lost it's conscience, if you will, with the passing of Buckley. Not only it's conscience but its intellectual foundation and guiding principals. Both Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagen were influenced by Buckley and sought his counsel.

The following segments are a bit lengthy, and do requires concentration to gain the most value from them. However, if one can afford the time it is worth the investment. As stated in my opening remark the topic remains  relevant today and will remain so in the future.

Conservatives, pay particularly close attention to Buckley...



  1. never could understand this idea of economic imperialism when trade is done so freely and consentually and the act of the peoples of two countries not by governments unless we are talking of government controlled entities such as asocialistic gocvernment.

  2. Or as we have in the U.S. A mixed economy, which is to say a mixture if free market and governmental regulation.

    Been a long time since we had anything approaching a truly free market and trade.

  3. btw, RN, Truth considers you and me as being among the wealthy now. i thanked him for the compliment for the both of us. i hope i did not insult you by doing so.

  4. Not at all. I only wish I were wealthy.

    My posotions are held based on what I consider to be reasonable, objective, and hopefully unemotional.

    I have always believed the possibility of being successful should exist for everyone based on ability and merit. However, everone cannot be wealthy. Wealth can, however, be described many ways.

  5. that was the problem of that post of Truth's. it was totally an argument based upon an appeal to emotion rather than an argument based upon the appeal of reason.

    and he applied wealthy in the sense of money.

  6. If you're charging me with caring about the health and welfare of my fellow Americans Griper, I plead guilty.

    I'm off today and there are two stocks I'm waiting to pull the trigger on and buy with the profits I made from one I sold a couple weeks ago. I hope to be insanely wealthy from my "biweekly trading" ventures one day. Then I can join you on the right. Of course I will only benefit from the work of men and women of more modest means that chose to believe they're doing something other than protecting my low capital gains tax cuts and keping my defense company stocks performing well. Thank you and Rational Nation in advance.

    I'll be listening to Buckley and Chomsky today RN.

  7. Truth - Thank you for stopping by again.

    I must say while disagreeing with you often on principal, I admire your conviction to that which you hold as true. And I respect you for it.

    You and I often disagree but we find common grounds for discussion, and hell, I think we have both went as far as conceding on a couple of things.

    You are as proud to be a liberal as I am to be a independent conservative." And in the end his is how it should be, and how are founding fathers would have it. As they themselves had it in their time as shewn by that hot summer in Philly so long ago.

    Let me know your take on Buckley and Chomsky.

  8. Thank you for digging this up and reminding of us of a day when smart people with very different views of the world could have a civil and intelligent discussion. Though I disagreed often with Buckley on substance, I admired him for his intellect, integrity and civility. It speaks well of him that he invited debate with people such as Noam Chomsky.

    If there is any doubt that the supposedly leftist mainstream media is anything but, the fact that Chomsky is not, nor has he ever been, invited to serve the role of leftist pundit in mainstream news analysis should put it to rest.

    We live in an age of celebrity rather than substance, where our purported news organizations make their ratings targets either by preaching at peak volume to their respective choirs, or serving up intellectual pablum. Neither Glen Beck nor Keith Olbermann could hold their own for more than a minute with Buckley or Chomsky.

    I don't trust anyone with whom I do not disagree at least 25% of the time-- though I leave room for the possibility that it might be my mind rather than theirs' that's gone to sleep when I find myself constantly nodding in agreement.

  9. I agree completely about the conservative movement losing its conscience, although I would contend that it happened years ago.

    I have a little less regard for Buckley now than I used to - he seemed to make his peace with big government. Yet, he was reflective, very well-read and eloquent. With only a few exceptions, we are without that on the Right today.

  10. Carl- I think the conservative movement started it's decline in the late 50's early 60's.

    Buckley was at the heart of the conservative movement, no one has yet replaced him.


As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 3/4/18 Anonymous commenting has been disabled and this site has reverted to comment moderation. This unfortunate action is necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or irrelevant to the post subject.

While we appreciate and encourage all political viewpoints we feel no obligation to post comments that fail to rise to the standards of decency and decorum we have set for Rational Nation USA.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.