Comment on this article
The Loyal Son
May/June 2008
by David Frum '82, '82MA
David Frum '82, '82MA, a former presidential speechwriter, is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a commentator for National Review Online.
Like thousands before
and after me, I first met William F. Buckley because of Yale.
A group of us from the
Yale Political Union had invited the conservative magazine editor R. Emmett
Tyrrell Jr. to come talk to us. Tyrrell generously accepted—and asked if he
could bring his friend Bill Buckley along with him. We students were thrilled,
of course, and on the appointed date Tyrrell and Buckley rocketed up from
Sharon together. “Rocket” is really the word. Driving was one unique
activity where Bill made up in speed for what he lacked in exactness and
subtlety. Tyrrell stepped out of the car looking a little wobbly.
For dinner, we
students had booked a restaurant on Chapel Street called the Old Heidelberg
(long-ago, and deservedly, extinct). Buckley, presciently distrustful of undergraduate
taste, had taken the precaution of bringing with him—not his dinner, he
would take his chances on that—but his wine: six bottles of 1967 Haut-Brion.
It may seem strange
that I can still recall the exact vintage all these years later. I suppose
that’s because I was so amazed by what happened next: Buckley tipped the
waitress at the Old Heidelberg to open the wine—and then poured out this
amazing juice to a table of young men whose usual beverage was Dr. Pepper.
Even more amazing was
what Buckley did after that: he put searching questions to the students at the
table and listened patiently to what each of us had to say. Under his interrogation
—and illuminated by his wine—we all were made to feel as if our
self-conscious ramblings amounted to something like … intelligent
conversation.
That was a quarter
century ago. I would go on to enjoy many more conversations with Buckley. Yet
none has ever lingered in my memory like that first one.
| |
Buckley had become as much a symbol of Yale as Dink Stover. |
I suppose the memory
owed as much to where we were speaking as to what was said. William F. Buckley
Jr. began his career as Yale’s most famous dissident, the author of a coruscating
attack on the school for the collectivism of its economists and the lack of
Christian mission in its administrators. Three decades on, Buckley had become
as much a symbol of Yale as Dink Stover.
In his style of dress,
his mannerisms and jokes, Buckley preserved a vanished era of Yale’s past. At
least, I think he preserved it
—but then again, since I never met anyone who behaved quite the way he did,
it’s also possible that the whole persona was his personal invention, as exotic
to his classmates in 1950 as it was to me.
Buckley had rebelled
against Yale. And yet Yale formed him and defined him. I have never met any
other adult who cared about the editorial line of the Yale Daily News. Or who would so cheerfully address the Yale Political
Union. Or who accepted a Yale BA as of-right permission to cease addressing him
as “Mr. Buckley” and graduate to the cherished “Bill.”
In return, he formed
and redefined Yale. Before 1950, it would never have occurred to anyone to
regard Yale—or any of the other great Ivy League universities—as anything
other than “conservative” institutions, in every possible meaning of
the word “conservative.” The presidents of Yale, Harvard, Columbia,
and so on ranked among the great pillars of the land; the university chaplains
epitomized American religious orthodoxy; the student body was overwhelmingly
drawn from the secure and the propertied. If this was not “conservatism,”
what on earth could the word mean?
It was William F.
Buckley who first argued that the word “conservative” could and
should mean something very different from the accepted use—that there could
and did exist some important sense in which institutions like Yale had ceased
to conserve the nation and the civilization that had created them. Yale and places
like it had long become accustomed to criticism that they clung too firmly to
the past. Here for the first time was an intellectual voice chastising them for
not clinging to the past nearly firmly enough!
| |
God and Man at Yale was a critique written in love. |
In this, Bill Buckley
started a tradition. He would be followed in due course by many others. As so
often happens, each would-be successor fell progressively further and further
short of the original innovator. For what these later and angrier and louder
voices never understood about Bill Buckley and his God and Man at Yale was that his critique was a critique written in
love.
If Buckley’s followers
often misunderstood him, so too did his many and ferocious critics. With its
attack on Keynesian economics and its championing of Yale’s Christian mission, God and Man at Yale is today
remembered as an unbendingly reactionary book. And yet in one important way, at
least, Buckley’s notorious book should be seen not as the last gasp of a bygone Yale but as the first
harbinger of the new Yale.
Look again at
Buckley’s call for Yale to return to its “Christian” mission. Yale’s
Christian mission had historically been of course a fiercely Protestant one.
This Protestant mission and Protestant identity infused much of Yale’s angry
first response to the young Buckley.
Buckley’s accusations
of irreligion so offended the Yale authorities that they convened a special
panel to investigate, under the chairmanship of Henry Sloane Coffin. If any
single man personified the American WASP ascendancy, Henry Sloane Coffin, Yale
College Class of 1897, was he: heir to a furniture-making fortune, a Bonesman,
pastor of the Madison Avenue Church in New York City, moderator of the Presbyterian
Church (USA), president of the Union Theological Seminary, brother of the president
of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Et cetera.
And what was Henry
Sloane Coffin’s response to God and Man at Yale? In his memoir, Miles Gone By, Buckley quoted from a letter that Coffin had (as
Buckley said) “incautiously” written to a concerned alumnus. In the
letter, Coffin said that Buckley “should have attended Fordham or some
similar institution.” Some similar Catholic institution. In other words: if you don’t like how
we do things, Mr. Buckley, perhaps you should have stayed among your own kind.
| |
Buckley was a man of the 1950s in his politics but a man of the 1960s in his literary sensibility. |
With God and Man at
Yale, William F. Buckley was
audaciously claiming that a Catholic could speak to Yale with all the rights of
an insider—rather than with the grateful deference appropriate to an
outsider. In time, similar claims would be made by Jewish students, by African
American students, by women, by gays, and by the children of the great
post-1970 immigration from Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
Many (not all) of
their particular claims would have appalled the author of God and Man at
Yale. And yet those claims were
also anticipated and to some degree made possible by him. A strange outcome --
but then again, maybe not so strange. At once reactionary and rebel,
conservative and iconoclast, religiously orthodox but culturally heterodox, a
man of the 1950s in his politics but a man of the 1960s in his literary
sensibility, Buckley was a man of many dimensions.
We are all better and
greater for his life and work. And if he never stopped caring for Yale, it is
fitting that Yale decided, before it was too late, to laud him by conferring an
honorary degree in 2000, the 50th anniversary of the graduation of this great
and good man, this loving and loyal friend, this devoted and difficult alumnus.  |