← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Faust

Parallel Lives: William F. Buckley vs. Samuel T. Francis Paul Gottfried

Thread ID: 16984 | Posts: 8 | Started: 2005-02-26

Wayback Archive

Faust [OP]

2005-02-26 20:16 | User Profile

Parallel Lives: William F. Buckley vs. Samuel T. Francis

Paul Gottfried, VDARE.com, Feb. 25

[VDARE.com Note: Sam Francis will be buried on Saturday in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Peter Brimelow will be present.]

Recently by Paul Gottfried: How Russell Kirk (And The Right) Went Wrong

The Greek historian Plutarch bequeathed to later generations a comparative study of Greek and Roman heroes known as Parallel Lives. This book was a favorite of one of my subjects, the very recently departed Samuel Francis (1947-2005). He gave it as a gift to my younger son.

Plutarch’s masterpiece is intended to teach us about human defects and heroic virtues. The groupings include Caesar and Alexander, Theseus and Romulus, Demosthenes and Cicero, Lycurgus and Numa, and Solon and Publicola. All of the dyads culminate in sugkriseis, critical comparisons. The author, as he tells us, does “not shrink back [ouk apokneteon]” from chastising as well as praising his subjects.

It is in the spirit of this ancient experiment that I am looking at two political journalists who have influenced my life: Francis and the still intermittently active William F. Buckley.

The source materials for the two are quantitatively different. Whereas Buckley has published a Literary Autobiography and has been the subject of numerous biographical studies since the 1970s, Francis is known, beside his political writings, through anecdotal information, a thumbnail sketch by Joseph Scotchie, and a few scattered eulogies.

While Buckley in the 1950s almost single-handedly launched the postwar conservative movement, Francis ended his life as a socially marginal spokesman for a marginalized creed.

There is nothing even slightly commensurable about the attention that the literary establishment has paid to the two. Buckley has spent his life in the limelight, enjoying the accolades of the Left—despite his faux pas of having defended Senator McCarthy in the early fifties. By contrast, Francis, once a nationally acclaimed journalist, lost his media friends. He fell from a mediumly significant newspaper job, at the neoconservative Washington Times, in the nineties. Because of his unfashionably conservative opinions, he could not find a comparable position again. He ended his regrettably short life as an independent journalist—providentially aided by the institutions of the emerging paleoconservative movement and the advent of the internet.

On the moral level, it is impossible for me to treat these figures with equal sympathy. Buckley, unlike Francis, has spent the latter part of his life as a social butterfly. He has exchanged old friends for new and more useful ones. His fawning on the neoconservatives, begun in the seventies, has continued. (Undoubtedly these contacts have remained useful.) Buckley has moved dramatically to the left since the 1960s, when he was still defending Southern segregation. He has covered this up deftly, by cultivating leftist as well as neoconservative friends, and even handing over the journal that he founded in 1955, to “stand athwart history” to motley writers who in any previous age would have been seen as somewhere on the juvenile left.

Recently, his most recently handpicked editor-in-chief, Richard Lowry, [email him] praised Condoleezza Rice, for gearing her approach to international relations to the “American ideals” of the civil rights movement.

“Human dignity,’ Lowry explains, “can triumph over injustice as they did in her 1950s-era Birmingham, Ala.”

Such an understanding is not likely to shed light on the world’s geopolitical and cultural complexities.

But even more striking than the utter emptiness of this leftist piety is to encounter it in a fortnightly that on August 24, 1957 vehemently opposed to the enfranchisement of Southern Negroes. Buckley and his editorial colleagues were then concerned about the effect of a large, predictably leftist black vote on the American practice of limited government.

In the late nineties, Buckley decisively moved the magazine he controlled from expressing misgivings about immigration to silence, in obedience to the GOP leadership. Peter Brimelow and NR’s immigration-critical editor—in-chief John O’Sullivan were eliminated to make way for xenophile editors and contributors, exemplified by Ramesh Ponnuru, John J. Miller, and Daniel Griswold.

I myself, formerly an NR contributor, had fallen through the cracks in an earlier purge, in which editors Chilton Williamson and Joe Sobran, were edged out because they were uncongenial to the new folks on Buckley’s block.

These purges corresponded to Buckley’s pontifical practice, which started in the fifties, of excommunicating conservatives who no longer suited his purpose. That purpose, however, had once been to fight international communism—as opposed to accommodating the peeves of his neoconservative eating companions.

But I will say there is still something vaguely awesome about Buckley as an animator of movements. As a young man I had imitated his style as well as opinions, in the way that Demosthenes, then a stuttering youth, had tried to speak in the manner of an illustrious Athenian courtroom orator.

I now wince as I behold Buckley in the role of a neoconservative supernumerary, trying to stay “relevant” by rephrasing neocon platitudes in his ornate style. He lurches from one disconnected thought to the next, for example, in his boorish comment about praying for the pope’s death because of his infirm condition, in order to make waves, without causing offense to his masters.

Perhaps by now Buckley may have trouble recalling what he used to be—before yielding to excessive social climbing and other character defects.

Sam Francis was one of my closest friends, and someone whose death deeply saddens me. But he never seduced me (perhaps I was too old by the time I met him) the way that Buckley did well into my thirties.

Where Buckley has shown debilitating weakness, Sam exhibited extraordinary strength. Unlike the occasional paleo association with over-the-top Catholicism, Sam went on regarding himself as a Southern Presbyterian, long after he had lost a specifically Christian faith. His interest in the English Civil War, on which he wrote a doctoral dissertation at the University of North Carolina, was driven by his admiration for the Roundheads! He took pride in being descended from French Huguenots who had settled in the South. This Calvinist connection was something from which he never shrank.

Sam’s mastery at constructing coherent Georgian sentences, a skill he shared with Buckley (but few others) may have come from his immersion in English history. The other possible source—Joseph Scotchie observes—was Sam’s exposure to the work of his fellow-Southerner, William Faulkner. Known for his sharp wit as well as rhetorically moving prose, Sam was morally passionate in a way that no other human being I’ve known could equal. Both his solitary brooding side, on which others have commented, particularly his recent deriders, and his sense of humor (which my wife insists was the best she ever ran into) had a morally tortured aspect.

Contrary to Mencken’s mot about Puritans’ agonizing over the fact that others might be enjoying themselves somewhere, Sam was a Puritan (a term he would not have shunned) who mourned the vanishing of a civilization. That civilization came out of a European white population that once believed in itself and therefore was inclined to preserve what it had created.

Sam argued in cascading columns that, absent this culture-building component, the resulting civilization was doomed. And the only possible way to hold back that end was to fashion counterrevolutionary myths, comparable to Georges Sorel‘s “redemptive myths,” that might galvanize what was left of a Euro-American core population to defend itself against extinction—or else moral decadence.

Sam’s desperate solution came out of deeply-held conviction and from the fact that he could no longer find a workable way back from the multicultural nightmare that was overwhelming his society. He was neither a “positivist” nor a fascist but a supremely decent and brilliant analyst of our historical condition who was still groping for solutions to social decay at the time of his death.

Unfortunately, Sam lacked the social presence and conversational facility—and wealth—of Buckley—a man whom Sam went from admiring to despising. If only he had enjoyed the influence and media-accessibility that were available to Buckley, without having to pay the price Buckley did and still does, Sam might have exercised the impact on our conservative-leaning youth that was his right.

The abuse he suffered at the hands of neoconservative lightweights is an outrage that this generation of journalists may never be able to expiate. One can only hope that Sam’s less than honorable critics hold their peace.

Neither their pretense of respect nor a continuation of their infantile slanders would be suitable during this period of mourning.

(Posted on February 25, 2005)

Top Home Next Story Post a Comment Send This Page Search Comments

I was saddened to hear of the death of Sam Francis. I only came into contact with his writings over the past few years, but I always looked forward to his clear thinking and heartening attempts to find a way out of the multi-cultural morass the United States finds itself in today.

At the same time, when I was just in my teens I also was exposed to the brilliant oratory of William F. Buckley. I remember hearing him speak in Santa Barbara, Calif. in 1961, I believe, and I at first saw him as "the Great White Hope" to hold back the "barbarians already inside the gates." However, after a few decades of reading "National Review," I gave up my subscription when I realized that Buckley had sold out to the forces that are steadily destroying our nation.

I agree that it's too bad that a real patriot like Sam Francis couldn't have gotten more publicity and exposure but such are the times.

Posted by Paul Jones at 4:53 PM on February 25

"Sam went on regarding himself as a Southern Presbyterian, long after he had lost a specifically Christian faith."

This single sentence is what bothers me most about our dear departed friend. An authentic Christian faith is roote in faith in God through Jesus. I hope Sam didn't shed an authentic faith over something as useless as multiculturalists and their evangelical allies who want to feel good about themselves by inviting the world to plop right down here in the U.S.

Posted by Esteban at 5:22 PM on February 25

I can remeber watching Mr. Buckley on firing line when I was younger. He always impressed me as witty but lacking in substance. That was back in the 70's. He was always a disappointment to me, a rather superficial "conservative" with his east cost brahmin accent and arrogance. Ultimately, he did very little of worth and significant damage to the post-war conservative movement. He never even came close in stature to Mr. Francis.

Posted by PJ at 6:22 PM on February 25

Mr. Buckley's "East coast Brahmin accent" was actually Southern. He was born and raised in South Carolina. His father was a Texan and his mother a South Carolinian. His ancestry is Southern all the way. That accounts for the accent. However, his streak of universalism, which may have been a trait of his Catholocism, was enormously impacted by his residency in New York City. Mr. Buckley was co-opted by the liberal ocean in which he lived. Although I was sickened by his sycophancy vis a vis the civil rights hustlers, I think Buckley went along to survive and maintain his influence within the conservative community. He knew the civil rights battle had been lost and he moved on rather than remain contentious. In other words, he had more to lose than Sam Francis. Heroically, Sam accepted exile to the wilderness where he continued to cry out his warnings. History will exonerate Mr. Francis and it will rebuke Mr. Buckley. Buckley chose to run with the liberals, at least in public, and he paid the price. The blogosphere will continue the work of Mr. Francis, and National Review will fade.

Posted by Xenophon at 8:54 PM on February 25

Buckley personified urbane american-ness to aspiring americans, but like all ego fleshed humans was seduced by the perks and pleasures of the literati, so became a shill to pontificitis malefactoris.

Mr. Francis is fortunate that his courage of conviction was not tested by the intoxicants of celebrityitis, tho his Southern-ness would have defeated that demon, and his genuine rightness about American identity he emphasized is his enduring legacy.

The public mood in this era is of uplifting the weak, misfits, pitiful masses and saving them from their self inflicted wounds,

and urging the wealthy to spot more cash for the rehab and get-me-started programs.

Mr Francis' clarity of thought and praise where praise was due attitude, would have cooked his goose ASAP with the diversity police. So no mainstreaming for his writings or ideas.

But WE all know of him and taking sustenance his thoughts we can celebrate his being and contribution during black history month each year.

Posted by Hector at 12:00 AM on February 26

One wonders if someone like Mr. Buckley will ever realize what little his life has truly amounted to, and how much he has lost by selling out over the years compared to how much he gained.

Posted by lonewolf_esq at 4:34 AM on February 26

I remember being quite a Buckley devotee in the 1970's. He was rich, smooth, intelligent and conservative. He had the style and the personality, which pushed him to the forefront of being, able to sell post '60s conservativism to the masses. I was excited to hear that he was on speaker's tour at my college my senior year. He came in, ambled on in a dry monotone for 2 hours and bored 3/4 of the room. All I got out of this diatribe was that he respected Galbreth, but still opposed his views; he'd rather be sailing in international waters so he could legally smoke dope, and that he'd rather write a thriller than face the clamoring left. In other words, he seemed on the fringe of career burn out and retirement. That was 1981.

Posted by Surfer Sam at 4:56 AM on February 26

Athought William Buckley(a past hero of mine) gave legs to the conservative movement and issues of the day,he used those legs to begin to run backwards threw acceptance and appeasement.Mr Frances used those same legs to run forward and not look back.He told the truth when this nation needed the truth.He was not copopted by the pressures of DC Nor the liberal mind set,as Buckley was.Mr Sam was able to elliminate the gray are to which pols love to play inn, and put issues in the black and white arena.

Posted by Bradley Sanford at 10:49 AM on February 26

I subscribed to National Review from the 60's through the mid-90's, when it caould fairly be descibed as conservative. Since the purge of Mssrs. Brimelow, O'Sullivan et al, I regard it as an echo chamber of The Weekly Standard and refuse to read it. Buckley has re-defined conservatism as a combination of left-liberal domestic policies along with a mania to kill Arabs for Israel.

Posted by Larry at 2:00 PM on February 26

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2005/02/parallel_lives.php

Okiereddust

2005-02-26 20:52 | User Profile

[QUOTE]Unlike the occasional paleo association with over-the-top Catholicism,.....[/QUOTE]Sound familiar Walter and Q? :lol:

Faust

2005-02-26 21:18 | User Profile

Okiereddust,

That is funny, but the member of the Romish Church are like that. My family were Southern Presbyterians too like Samuel Francis.

Stanley

2005-02-26 22:05 | User Profile

A great tribute to a great man. [QUOTE=Faust]The abuse he suffered at the hands of neoconservative lightweights is an outrage that this generation of journalists may never be able to expiate. One can only hope that Sam’s less than honorable critics hold their peace.

Neither their pretense of respect nor a continuation of their infantile slanders would be suitable during this period of mourning. [/QUOTE]A vain hope.[url=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16966] Francis re-fought immoral battles of 1964[/url]

AntiYuppie

2005-02-26 23:47 | User Profile

Unfortunately, Sam lacked the social presence and conversational facility—and wealth—of Buckley—a man whom Sam went from admiring to despising. If only he had enjoyed the influence and media-accessibility that were available to Buckley, without having to pay the price Buckley did and still does, Sam might have exercised the impact on our conservative-leaning youth that was his right.

That a charlatan and sophist like Buckley won every accolade imaginable and remained visible throughout his life while a truly brilliant man like Francis died in obscurity is testament to the saying "sh*t floats."

Where Buckley has shown debilitating weakness, Sam exhibited extraordinary strength. Unlike the occasional paleo association with over-the-top Catholicism, Sam went on regarding himself as a Southern Presbyterian, long after he had lost a specifically Christian faith. His interest in the English Civil War, on which he wrote a doctoral dissertation at the University of North Carolina, was driven by his admiration for the Roundheads! He took pride in being descended from French Huguenots who had settled in the South. This Calvinist connection was something from which he never shrank.

In his obituary, Sobran had implied that Francis was drawn to Catholicism. This doesn't even seem to be the case culturally, if we are to believe Gottfried's account. Though what strikes me as strange is that Sobran's libertarianism has closer ties to Calvinism than to Catholicism, while Francis's more communitarian and anti-capitalist worldview shows the influence of Catholic social thought. One would think that this would be the other way around.

In any case, I sppose that it was a good gesture on Gottfried's part to write a tribute to Francis. I had the impression that they had a falling out over Francis's Occidental Quarterly endorsement of Kevin MacDonald's ideas.

Hugh Lincoln

2005-02-27 00:09 | User Profile

I wonder if a friendship with Gottfried made Sam Francis choke on the Jewish issue. If so, he certainly wouldn't be the first. So many folks out there, because of a favorite Jew, can't speak of them in negative, general terms, though they well know that they are, in fact, a general negative. Who knows. It could be a cautionary tale. Jews love sidling up to radicals of all sorts, and it would be extremely useful for them to sidle up to a "white supremacist" writer and thinker and say, "You know man, I know what you're saying."

On the other hand, Gottfried may well be puffing the "friendship." By all accounts Francis didn't have friendships.

Buster

2005-02-27 23:01 | User Profile

[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]In his obituary, Sobran had implied that Francis was drawn to Catholicism. This doesn't even seem to be the case culturally, if we are to believe Gottfried's account. Though what strikes me as strange is that Sobran's libertarianism has closer ties to Calvinism than to Catholicism, while [B]Francis's more communitarian and anti-capitalist worldview shows the influence of Catholic social thought.[/B] One would think that this would be the other way around.[/QUOTE]

Nice post. The point is well taken. Sobran seems to drift between philosophical libertarianism and anarchism. I know he's gone through the program and the LvM Institute. And Francis' ideas do meld quite easily with Catholic social thought as I know it, which is hardly libertarian. Much more systematic than Sobran.

Faust

2005-02-28 00:27 | User Profile

AntiYuppie,

Yes I hate that charlatan Buckley, I saddened that I once admired him in the past. He is disloyal to ideas, principles, and people.

[QUOTE]"Though what strikes me as strange is that Sobran's libertarianism has closer ties to Calvinism than to Catholicism, while Francis's more communitarian and anti-capitalist worldview shows the influence of Catholic social thought. One would think that this would be the other way around."[/QUOTE]

Yes some of what Francis put forth did make one think of Belloc and Chesterton.

One of Freepers attacking Samuel Francis said:

[QUOTE]"However, there is an American school of thought that is anti-classical liberal and more like the "blood and soil" conservatism of Europe. This tradition reveres Tom Watson, Theodore Bilbo, Henry Ford, Father Charles Coughlin, and (to some extent) Theodore Roosevelt and Huey Long, as their forbears... They would have no problem with a return of de iure racial segregation. In the end, Sam Francis was no conservative in the American sense, and certainly not a paleoconservative. He was a "blood and soil" nationalist."[/QUOTE]

And I will say if "blood and soil" nationalism is not Paleoconservatism; Paleoconservatism is nothing. On the other hand he did bring some good points on where precedent might be found for Samuel Francis. I might add the Puritans and the idea of Commonwealth Government going back to Cromwell might be even better. Here we find Calvinism is a form that could give precedent Samuel Francis.

Link;

"Surely 'revolutionary conservative' is a contradiction in terms!" [url]http://web.archive.org/web/20030206152232/www.suba.com/~rcarrier/revcon.html[/url]