|
February 29, 2008Noonan, Buckley & the Paradox of PrivilegeThank heavens for Peggy Noonan who so often manages, so elegantly, to articulate the meandering germs running through my brain but remaining unexpressed due to my lack of skill. In appreciating William F. Buckley today she writes:
That’s precisely what I thought upon hearing of Buckley’s death. I wasn’t thinking of the political, but of the patrician. I too thought of Jackie Onassis and her elegance, because Buckley was all elegance, himself - in his writing, his bearing, his self-assurance and quickness. You might call it “old money” elegance, except that plenty of people from “old money” are crass and trashy, completely at-home with all that is vulgar in a very vulgar age. The quality of elegance I’m talking about though, really has little to do with money. I might have argued, once, that it had to do with education, and perhaps - once - that was true. The people coming out of the great universities - back when they really were great institutions dedicated to the quest for understanding - would leave Yale or Oxford or the Sorbonne having been imbued with such a broadness of mind and scope of knowledge that he or she would be capable of drawing upon their exposure to art, great literature, philosophy and higher mathematics to hold forth on almost any subject, discussing even - as Ms. Noonan writes Buckley did - the subject of peanut butter, with intelligence, humor and humility. I say humility, because that sort of education cannot help but enlighten a student as to how privileged he has been to receive it. The truly privileged, when educated rightly, understand that their good fortune in having been exposed to higher things obliges them not to insularity, but to openness. A William F. Buckley or a Jackie Kennedy may not often rub elbows with the hoi polloi, but when they did they used their best manners, because to do less would be disrespectful to the other, and demeaning to everything they had been taught by the great ones who came before. They had no difficulty engaging others outside their spheres because their security within themselves - part of which comes from that humility that recognizes the random vagaries of privilege - allowed that generosity of spirit. But I don’t think education completely explains this quality which we see disappearing with the deaths of these sorts. Americans are - in terms of numbers, if not in real study - better educated now, than at anytime in our history, but we no longer see the graduates of Yale and Harvard emerging with thoughtful humility, having nourished on the fields of past greatness. Much of that is due to the politically correct curriculum which substitutes weak identity appreciation over strong reason, but part of it is due to our ever-fading sense of wonder and awe at anything but ourselves. Chris Matthews, recalling that he started out as a Bill Buckley Conservative and said poignantly of Buckley:
It takes humility to juggle before God because it’s all you can do, and also takes self-knowledge and self-confidence. It also requires the security of knowing, with absolute certainty, that you were loved into being and for a purpose, which - no matter how privileged your birth or education - makes you just like everyone else. William F. Buckley and Jackie Onassis seemed to know that, and it made them graceful and great. It has been told that often when Buckley had a big dinner party, he’d invite a leading liberal to be a guest of honor; Buckley believed in giving attention to those with whom he disagreed. He believed he could learn from them. Last night I posted a clip from the old Johnny Carson show. It begins with him appreciatively laughing with the post-1960 election Richard Nixon, then allowing his guests to shine in hijinks, and finally with him talking to a woman with a hen. I’ve been watching a lot of Carson lately, and marveling at him. Unlike Buckley, he was not from old money and he did not go to Yale; he was a Nebraskan boy with a quick wit and a curious mind who supplemented his U of N degree by educating himself throughout his life, reading great books and political tomes and studying astronomy, and - like Buckley -he was capable of fully engaging with his guests whether they were political thinkers, opera singers, poets, entertainers or American eccentrics. One had the sense that he knew what he knew, and was glad to discover what they knew, too, to add to his store, to enrich his own understanding. That’s the same gracefulness. Buckley and Carson were two sides of an American coin forged when society was busily broadening its intellect and admitting all comers, when there was a sense of relishing the battle while respecting the foe, and of looking out for the little guy who might get caught between the thrusts and parries. We’re losing it. As the nation becomes more “privileged” in the superficials she is echoing empty at her depths. The paradox of privilege is that it is meaningless when it only serves the self, when it thinks it has nothing to learn from anyone else. Buckley, I think, understood that; now he is gone. Who is left to teach it? Obi’s Sister has a nice round-up. Michelle Malkin’s round-up - unsurprisingly - is comprehensive http://theanchoressonline.com/2008/02/29/noonan-and-the-paradox-of-privilege/trackback/ 9 Responses to “Noonan, Buckley & the Paradox of Privilege” |
Bad Behavior has blocked 18689 access attempts in the last 7 days.
February 29th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
On Being Liberally Educated via Self-Help…
The Anchoress: Thank heavens for Peggy Noonan who so often manages, so elegantly, to articulate the meandering germs running through my brain but remaining unexpressed due to my lack of skill. In appreciating William F. Buckley today she writes: ……
February 29th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
As a conservative at Yale (Mr. Buckley was actually an alumnus of my Party in the Yale Political Union), I speak for us all when I say that we mourn him incredibly. The specter of the “Yale Man” hangs heavily over us, and it is a standard to which my brothers here all aspire. Mr. Buckley was the last Yale Man. I am grieved that I was not here when he addressed the YPU last year, but my friends who saw him and had the opportunity to meet and speak with him were awed.
“I might have argued, once, that it had to do with education, and perhaps - once - that was true. The people coming out of the great universities - back when they really were great institutions dedicated to the quest for understanding - would leave Yale or Oxford or the Sorbonne having been imbued with such a broadness of mind and scope of knowledge that he or she would be capable of drawing upon their exposure to art, great literature, philosophy and higher mathematics to hold forth on almost any subject, discussing even - as Ms. Noonan writes Buckley did - the subject of peanut butter, with intelligence, humor and humility.”
I love my university, and will be ever loyal to her, but you are correct in pointing out that the vast majority of people with Yale degrees do not look like that any longer. There is a small group of us, however, that is dedicated to these principles and traditions; in particular to keeping alive Mr. Buckley’s great vision of conservatism. But also to keeping alive the tradition of education- true education, the kind open to any man with a discriminating, inquiring mind. It is hard to stand in the crowd of grade-obsessed premed students, hyper-materialist proto i-bankers, soft-headed beer-swilling juveniles unwilling to enter maturity, hard to stand amongst such students and cry “THINK!”, even here in New Haven. We do what we can. We hold ourselves to the impossible standard, and we do not forget the great, great men who came before us.
I was very much disappointed by campus culture when I first got here- but not all is lost. We are a minority, but we exist, and we fight.
[edited to insert italics - admin]
February 29th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
I don’t [thank] heaven for Peggy Noonan, in fact every since she said that Bush had single handedly destroyed the Republican party, I do not even read her nonsense anymore
[Edited to admit "thank" by admin]
February 29th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
[...] Elegant graciousness, personified (The Anchoress) A William F. Buckley or a Jackie Kennedy may not often rub elbows with the hoi polloi, but when they did they used their best manners, because to do less would be disrespectful to the other, and demeaning to everything they had been taught by the great ones who came before. They had no difficulty engaging others outside their spheres because their security within themselves - part of which comes from that humility that recognizes the random vagaries of privilege - allowed that generosity of spirit. [...]
February 29th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Buckley changed the world, and changed my life. I grieve his passing, and rejoice in his legacy. He was a man in full, and then some. One of my proudest moments was appearing in his “Notes and Asides” section in the National Review. I actually got the great WFB to think twice about a subject! His response to my missive showed that not only had he given consideration to my point, but also the way I had made it. I had used a fair amount of alliteration, and he responded by saying: “Let us assume the latter.” It was like he was giving me a wink.
Anchoress: Awhile ago you said you were carrying on a correspondence with brilliant, famous figure. My guess was WFB. Was I right?
March 1st, 2008 at 9:50 am
“It has been told that often when Buckley had a big dinner party, he’d invite a leading liberal to be a guest of honor; Buckley believed in giving attention to those with whom he disagreed. He believed he could learn from them.”
I suspect we’d accomplish a lot more in the “culture wars” of we adopted this disposition of his. RIP.
March 2nd, 2008 at 10:51 am
I read a wonderful article–by Buckley, of course–in which he describes the delights and challenges of being part of the first post-WWII class at Yale. Yale determined to accept all the returning underclassmen, and the voltage of talent on campus was incredible. The humility and passion for learning may be the product of men, not boys, in the halls of higher learning.
March 3rd, 2008 at 1:15 am
“But whatever the exact net result in the restricted field of school desegregation, what a price we are paying for Brown! It would be ridiculous to hold the Supreme Court solely to blame for the ludicrously named ‘civil rights movement’ — that is, the Negro revolt.”
“I know of nothing in human history that would lead us to conclude that miscegenation is desirable.”
God bless the elegant.
March 6th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
[...] REMEMBERING WFB: Noonan, Buckley & the Paradox of Privilege …. [...]