On the death of William F. Buckley, James Poulos bemoans the loss of our refined, elder statesmen [quoting Ezra Klein]:

in the last two or three years, a whole host of giants have passed away, men who were political thinkers at a time when that made you a cultural figure. John Kenneth Galbraith, Milton Friedman, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., Norman Mailer, and now, William F. Buckley Jr. Gore Vidal is just about the last of their number left.

While I am extremely, extremely biased towards their viewpoint about the superiority of their style over today’s crop of idiots, I have to ask myself: what about the actual substance of their words? Some of these people, despite their cultured language, were saying very stupid things at times — and Buckley, despite the many points on which we agree, was not above expressing his eloquent support for certain bad ideas that might be best left behind us.

And surely I’m biased by my libertarian beliefs, but Galbraith, Schlesinger, Mailer and Vidal have also pushed a lot of bad ideas, though clothed in much finer verbiage than today’s pundits. (If you’re economically on the left, feel free to slam Friedman at this point.) I confess that at many times I feel myself persuaded by bad ideas presented beautifully (though I hope that I have come to my senses on them), but isn’t that a negative rather than a positive? If an eloquent individual can lend an idea weight with his amazing talents, shouldn’t we be critical when he chooses really bad ideas to espouse? Perhaps I am simply failing to distinguish appreciation of methods with appreciation of goals.

This dovetails with how I feel about Barack Obama. The guy’s simply amazing. If we were making a movie about the President, he’s who I want for the starring role. But that’s exactly the problem. I consider myself a hard-headed realist, and even I’m swayed by his charisma and style — so what about the actual substance of his policies? The emotions that he inspires — consciously so — are not objective, they are not rational, they are not logical. Outside of my movie, I don’t want a president that people feel emotionally attached to. I don’t want a president towards whom people feel undying loyalty. I don’t want President McCain either, but it looks like I’m going to get one or the other.

Heroic and noble leaders are the ones who have the capacity to lead us to the largest disasters, because they disable our rational faculties. Because I have an extremely low opinion of the actual policies of our recent presidents (and the potential policies of Obama, Clinton and McCain) I want people to level their full critical resources at them. Oh great, now I’ve chosen a political loser: taking a stand against Hope and other Good Feelings. Next I’ll attack Santa Claus.

I want presidents and intellectuals who make their cases with hard facts — and I want citizens who analyze those cases with detached objectivity. I am explicitly afraid of people in positions of influence and power who can lend excess power to their ideas with rhetorical eloquence or charisma, and so I’m hesitant to laud praise on them for style alone. Perhaps this makes me a small minded (small-hearted?) person, so be it. Every single one of the people listed said very good things — but they also said some bad things — you don’t have to agree with me on which ones are which to get nervous about what happens when people assess ideas (and those who profess them) on non-rational grounds. What value is wit, wisdom, style, or eloquence in service of bad ideas?

Which appeals to you more:?

Buckley: The central question that emerges—and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizens, born Equal—is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes—the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. …

Intarwebdork123: racizm is teh bad

It’s almost painful to write this post — I desperately want a higher level of discourse about politics, but I can’t help feeling a sense of personal dishonesty (though I will refrain from implying it in others) in wistfully remembering the style of these individuals without saying a word about the bad substance their talents sometimes supported.