William F. Buckley Jr.: A Man for Our Season

Sam Tanenhaus’s new biography of William F. Buckley Jr. is not just another book—it is an event. The National Review founder originally authorized Tanenhaus to write it in the 1990s, inspired by the strength of Tanenhaus’s biography of the anticommunist journalist Whittaker Chambers. Ever since, adherents of the conservative movement have been whispering about the project in a mix of eager anticipation and cautious trepidation. Now the biography, out just in time for the centenary of its subject’s birth, is well on its way to becoming one of the most–reviewed books of the year.

All the same, there is something rather untimely about the publication. After all, how much sway does Buckleyite conservatism still hold in American public affairs? While some remain loyal to the fusionist ideology WFB’s magazine long promoted, the populism and postliberalism that dominate right-wing politics today have little in common with it. In the pages of a Spring 2000 issue of Cigar Aficionado (of all places), Buckley himself dismissed Donald Trump as a “narcissist” and a “demagogue.” In some ways, Tanenhaus could not have written about a man more out of joint with our times.

But that is perhaps why America needs Buckley now more than ever. When he helmed National Review and was a fixture on PBS, young conservatives could look up to him and even emulate him. As a public intellectual, Buckley modeled the virtues of a gentlemanly comportment and an intellectual generosity that would be a great political tonic in this present age of rage and radicalism. Above all, we would do well to remember that Buckley was not a simple-minded reactionary motivated by self-interest or hatred, or even mere right-wing ideology, but rather a genuine patriot moved first and foremost by a conservatism of the heart.

Unfortunately, though, it is unlikely that Tanenhaus’s biography will bring that Buckley back to life. The author clearly admires certain things about the man, but he is very far from any kind of objective observer. Tanenhaus’s approach is ultimately too limited by his ideological commitment to liberalism; he is more interested in scrutinizing Buckley for his alleged sins against democratic orthodoxy than he is in providing a full assessment of a life well lived. All the same, Tanenhaus cannot conceal Buckley’s shining personality or inherent greatness.

Read more in Religion & Liberty.