OMG, I watched these one on one debates with my Father. I was so young. Dad was a conservative but he said Hitchens was the smartest guy on the left & he was right. Still watching Dad.
tubularbill Don't give up hope yet. Yes, the mainstream media have really dumbed down and sensationalised their programming due to the influence of advertisers who want to appeal to the greatest common denominator. There are however also new platforms where sharp, analytical people can meet. Ben Shapiro, Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson for example have all been on various podcasts like the Dave Rubin show. Maybe we will see a policy discussion between Harris and Shapiro in the near future. I think they could certainly have a civilised exchange of ideas.
Unfortunately, these kind of civilized discussions of controversial subjects is almost impossible in America now. Too many people think they already know the answers and don't want to listen.
Thank you Hoover Institution for these gems. How lucky i am, a guy from Israel who has a chance to look at such quality content 20 years later now that i'm old enough. Thank you for sharing it.
The wonderful thing about intelligent discourse, of which this is a good example, shouldn't only be about "With whom do I agree / disagree?" but appreciating how the parts articulate their positions regardless. ... I wish there was more of this. We, nowadays, tend to form black or white knee-jerk opinions basing the same on what we've heard and not necessarily what we know (or believe we know). Thanks for posting. This should be shown in schools.
It's a real head scratcher how Hitchens could accurately describe the motivations of the Vietnam war, etc, but come out in support of overthrowing Saddam Hussein.
That was amazing on so many levels. We seem incapable of having conversations like this today as the shouters and haters dominate the media. Thank you. By the way, who was that youngster who moderated the discussion??? Peter was also brilliant. Obviously, Hitchens and Buckley are intellectual giants. Listening to them was profoundly satisfying as each made his case calmly and elegantly. I am of the generation but slightly younger than the student leaders of the antiwar movement. I chose a different path and started at the US Naval Academy in 1969 when the war was in full swing but already winding down. I observed Nixon's and Kissinger's efforts to bring "peace with honor" in real time culminating in the unrestricted American bombing campaign known as the 1972 Christmas Bombings. The US unleashed hell on the North. Without doubt, in my view, the unrestricted warfare shocked the North Vietnamese nation top to bottom and brought the war to a negotiated settlement within days on January 27, 1973 in Paris. Up until then, the North Vietnamese were content to "negotiate" but resolve nothing. Negotiations went on fruitlessly for years. My view is that the North was employing a strategy of "attrition" against the Americans built on the theory that the Americans would in time lose heart and interest in the project and withdraw, thereby allowing the North to eventually achieve its objectives of defeating the South and unifying their country under a communist regime. This plan was working but was blown up by the "shock and awe" of the Christmas Bombings. As related in the book "When Hell was in Session" by Medal of Honor recipient and senior POW James Stockdale, the guards in the Hanoi Hilton transformed from arrogant torturers to best friends within days of realizing that continued unrestricted bombing would destroy the North and they would lose the war. As a result, the North folded and agreed to the same agreement Kissinger had been offering without progress for years. From a personal perspective, I watched in real time as the war "ended" at the negotiation table Paris. I had a personal interest in the facts on the ground because I was in my 4th year at Navy scheduled to graduate in June 1973 and be commissioned an Ensign in the US Navy. In short, I changed my career plans to become an A6 Intruder bombardier navigator with a direct role in the Vietnam War instead to become a cold warrior as a navigator/tactical coordinator in the P3-C Orion. I'm glad I did and feel pride in my small part of winning the Cold War without a shot. As to the civil rights movement, I have always been a believer in MLK's vision of a color blind society as the way forward. That vision is under vicious assault as I write this, with many powerful voices rejecting color blindness in favor of the clearly racist concepts of identity politics and intersectionality. I consider both of these concepts cultural and societal poison. In addition, I believe LBJ's great society programs have done more harm than good. In Amity Shlaes' brilliant retrospective "Great Society: A New History" she lays out a persuasive case that the great society has been a failure on every level despite honorable intentions. Robert Woodson has argued persuasively that the substantial progress blacks were making prior to 1965, when the great society was enacted into federal law, were stalled and reversed by LBJ's legislation. As a specific example, because of great society programs we now have a multigenerational black under class where out of wedlock births are approaching 100% leading to black enclaves where crime and violence, especially black on black murder is out of control, schools are failing massively and many other social pathologies abound. Even card carrying liberals like Bill Clinton acknowledge this failure in his famous volt face to "end welfare as we know it." This project has never been fully realized and the current administration seems bent on going back to old failed welfare policies where young mothers, especially in the black underclass effectively "marry the government." This has led to the multigenerational pathologies mentioned above. Thank you again. This video is amazing. A proud American
This is probably the best example of the dialectic there could ever be. Can you imagine an anti-war socialist having reasoned debate with a much older social and fiscal conservative in 2016?
I think the mid-late 90's was about the only time in my lifetime where that could generally happen, though Buckley and Galbraith had also made a good run at it in earlier decades. Today, both anti-war socialists and conservatives are pretty much irrelevant, and no one would bother to watch if they did debate.
The mid-late 90s was a very narrow historical era after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and before 9/11 and the many converging forces of this century gained strength when political rhetoric cooled for awhile. I mean, Bill Clinton's sex scandal dominated the news for two years, I can't imagine that today.
Morphing Reality Well after the Crisis of 2008, the conservative would not have a argument. See, what conservatives want is some kind renewal of life in the 1950s or even the 1870s. What you dont understand the 21st Century is ready to pound your down down.
Buckley was the last real conservative left. The new breed of conservatives are the radical fascist christians that Goldwater warned society about. As did Frank Zappa. You can't reason with a cultmember.
NO ONE is/was/willbe as adept as the Hitch was to make lascivious jokes, especially when someone else starts it. I'm really tired of seeing 5 different mostly banal people hunched over Wolf Blitzer or John King, rehashing the same insipidly frustrating shit ad infinitum. Just let the actually knowledgeable and insightful answer (arguably slanted, I mean it is the Hoover Institution) questions from a host without an unplugged vacuum for a head. Thanks for posting!
Wonderful discussion between two very intelligent men. William Buckley will always be the man who told Chomsky that he would, I'm paraphrasing here, "...Punch you in the goddamn face." Both are interesting polemic figures. Thanks for the post.
Big regret of mine was not going to a convention back in DC that Hitchens attended... he passed that same here :/:/ Definitely one of the best raconteurs of our time
I remember watching William F. Buckley, Jr. on television. I still do when I can. Always interesting and definitely a great writer. Peter Robinson did a splendid job interviewing two very difficult people to interview.
There is a wonderful episode of Uncommon Knowledge featuring Christopher Hitchens and Timothy Garton Ash. I think it's called "Literature and Politics" or something like that. I would love to see it posted to RUclips.
As an anti-Vietnam war protester in the Sixties, I was heavily influenced by our Oregon U.S.Senator Wayne Morse, a man with a huge intellect, who was one of only two senator in the US Senate, who from the the beginning of our involvement and especially after the Gulf of Tonkin "false flag" incident, spoke out continually against the war. We didn't believe the "Domino Theory" that attempted to persuade us that if Vietnam fell to the communists all of southeast Asia would fall as well. We also believed that we would get bogged down and not be successful in winning a land war fought in the jungles of Vietnam, specially since the South Vietnam army lacked the will to fight for their country.As it turned out, we were correct. Sadly, Senator Morse was reviled as anti-american for his commitment to the withdrawal of our military and was never honored for his unwavering leadership in bringing the war to an end. Having lunch with him once was an unforgettable experience.
Wally Smith Unfortunately, Hitchens' success with 'God is Not Great' made him known to many but also known *only* for his religious polemics to many (myself included). I didn't pay much attention to him at the time because I wasn't much interested in that debate. Only after his death did I find out about his huge output of political and social commentary, which I find far more interesting personally.
He was a bit mealy mouthed on this point - THE great moral question of his day on which he failed. This is why conservatism, maybe unfairly, was so untrusted in those and succeeding times.
Alec Edwards I got the feeling from him that he was only sorry that in the end things didn’t turn out the way he hoped they would. And the fact that he flat out said that he didn’t think the civil rights movement did any good pretty much solidifies my feelings towards him.
Pat TheHombre Given how people are a product of their time it's difficult to compare. I'm not saying he will fill their shoes but Ben Shapiro is looking promising. Even people who don't agree with him say he is really smart. Give it time.
Hitchens seemed much more happier back then..even conciliatory I would say than in his later years...they say time mellows a person but Hitchens was the exception to that rule.
Mike Orsini He does seem happy. I loved the little bit of banter about the left being masturbatory at which point Hitchens rather that refuting the accusation runs with it much to the chagrin of the host. priceless they were such great guests.
Two things are very different now, 1. a conservative like Buckley would be banned from all media nowadays, and 2. progressives nowadays couldn't construct rational arguments like Hitchens did, instead they would call everyone "racist" and upturn the table and walk off crying, and the interviewer would declare the progressive the winner (or be sacked).
"You're not going to let him get away with calling us an Empire are you?" Of course America is an empire. Just because America isnt official named an empire, doesnt mean it displays every sign of imperialist politics, colonial politics. Any nation, which controls other nations by threat of violence or financial destruction is an empire.
I’m not sure if Buckley’s argument for disagreeing with the idea that the Civil Rights Movement was a noble moment in American history is very persuasive or even tenable. If America’s original sin was the blatant and gross incompatibility between slavery and the Bill of Rights, the civil rights movement seems like a thematic indication of resolve. Whether or not the legislation was totally harmonious with the constitutional process shouldn’t be relevant given the unharmonious nature of the issue.
I am a war baby, born before the baby boom following the end of WW2. I was still at Uni in Oz when the baby boomers arrived like a mouse plague, devouring everything in their paths believing superior numbers induced or indicated infallibility. I listened to their ceaseless monotonous gabble and after I graduated in Medicine decided to act, sick of the armchair revolutionaries pontification and virtue signalling. I went to the warzone, worked with SCF and charities with one thing in mind, find out which side was in the right and which were the evildoers, quite prepared to join the Vietcong if they were the ones. I found that the population of ordinary people in South Vietnam wanted nothing to do with Communism and hated and feared Ho Chi Minh. Hitchins, like Hanoi Jane, was a traitor to European civilisation and representative of the rest who caused so much political damage to the war effort that the American forces were undermined by fifth columnists and the war was lost by default. It is now in the public domain that the Vietcong were beaten in everything but the last surrender or retreat back to the North.
I have always loved Christopher, but his comments disbelieving that in the 60's and even up to the time of the interview in the 90's, the story that the Soviets and the Chinese aims were expansionist (around 8:00), indicate that he hadn't learnt that much about communism since he was a 19 year old in Cuba. Very disappointing...... maybe he recovered later in the interview, but I was turned off.
What a thoroughly impressive debate. I am a fan of Hitch but I do think he was a little outclassed by WFB this time - a man I'm not aware of but understand has passed...it's a shame they both have for obvious reasons.
I don't understand how you have come to this conclusion. I think the differences the "two sides" had were very deep and real. For starters one side felt America was an exceptional nation that needed to mold the world in it's image. The other felt our forays into other nations resulting in war was akin to genocide. This is not a minor difference of opinion.
14:57 Goldwater thought "enemy couldn't sustain casualties" N. Vietnamese General Giap has said in interviews that the Tet Offensive resulted in a severe loss for his side, contrary to its portrayal in the Western media. Our side didn't follow it up for various reasons. So Goldwater's earlier optimism was probably ultimately justified.
General Gaip said, we have lost the war on the ground, but we will win the war at Paris. Walter Cronkite said during Tet that the war was lost when actually at that point USA victory was almost achieved and was lost with troop reductions
raygon8 of course , according to you we should th ave stayed there ok indefinitely. You probably believe that we would have won the war in Iraq had we simply kept hundreds of thousands of troops there indefinitely . It is this imperialistic gung ho neocon warmongering and lust for regime change and endless war that has screwed up the middle east and north Africa. Had Saddam and Gaddafi never been overthrown, ISIS would have never been born, the region would be vastly safer and more stable than it is and countless civilians both in the middle east and in Europe and the US who have been killed by terrorists : they would all be alive , not to mention the thousands of mostly poor/working class US troops who died unnecessarily.
MLK is over-rated. The real heroes of the civil rights movement was the millions of people who stood up, protested, boycotted, wrote their congressman and made personal sacrifices for a larger good. King was wealthy, had an entourage, a girl in every port, millions listened when he spoke, etc. He paid with his life, but I think we should have a civil rights day, not an MLK day.
William Buckley was also one of the most subtely stylish men. Usually a white shirt, with a classic tie and nuetral suit. From the mid 60's to the late 90's, you never look at his clothing and think it looks dated. That's timeless and classy style. Unlike the goon at the start who looks every inch 1998.
When Buckley had people on his show, he had the good sense to let them talk and not interrupt them or get in their space. This guy doing the interview, he keeps interrupting Hitchens and tapping his arm to get his attention. It's annoying. Back in the day, we had Buckley as the voice of the Conservatives, nowadays it's Sean Hannity.
MondoBeno - Riiiight! Can you imagine Hannity trying to have a conversation with Leftists today who would offer their own opinions? Not a chance. The only things Leftists have to say today are worn out talking points. NO original thought comes out of their mouths. Only partisan “stay within the narrative” dupes. Laughable.
I watched this in 2020 and just thought 'we are doomed'. Where is the philosopher of this age? And more importantly even, who is willing to debate them on open terms?
buckley still sharp here seems very tired...and time as proven him incorrect...though i would argue the conservative party he represented no longer exists. hitchens as usual is very brave and contrasts himself by his praise for martin luther king and his ability to hold american leaders accountable...labeling their actions crimes. there is something unending about the Vietnam war era and it feels like opportunities were missed..though it could be we just are suffering from what was achieved since we are more a divided country than ever..and the powers that be seem to want that. i cant help wondering if it always comes back to one thing...the idea constantly reinforced that war and only war....is what makes the country great.
While many people mistake me for a conservative, because I appreciate the sharp wit and terrific ability to get to the meat of a subject, I am actually a Libertarian. Where I felt as I just described about Mr. Buckley, I have NOT felt anything le that about Mr. Hannity.
At least Mr Buckley has the decency and civility not to scoff and show his obvious contempt for Mr Hitchens as this terrible presenter does. You're supposed to be moderating. Manners please!
+Hop Jump I agree for the most part. Buckley doesn't exactly mask his contempt at points - artful disdain was always one of his idiosyncrasies - but the sheer red-faced hatred the moderator has for Hitchens and the New Left is astonishingly revolting. Watch beginning at 11:43 when the moderator's voice quickens from the desire to squeeze a mea culpa out of Hitchens for essentially questioning something when he was in his 20s. At 12:30, the pen - in a not so unphallic display - comes out (a la Buckley in his heyday, mind you) in an attempt to be mightier than both sword and word.
Haha, well spotted with the pen, a la Buckley indeed. He did do it with a certain style and wit, and Hitchens had his own brand of ingenious comebacks. The 'moderator' here seems to be doing the old ad hominem thing. A weakness in the first place, but at least have some wits about you.
Buckley did _not_ feel contempt for Hitchens. Quite the opposite. View the videos of the other discussions between these two and it will be immediately obvious that the two men had the greatest respect for each other. You confuse disagreement, even disdain, for a man's ideas or statements with contempt for the man himself: these are very different things.
DieFlabbergast My comment was actually directed at the presenter/mediator, not Mr Buckley. I completely agree with you, there was great respect between the two.
Peter Robinson and Christopher Hitchens were good friends, but there was indeed a massive political gulf between them; Hitchens, at the time of recording, still regarded himself as a socialist while Robinson is firmly right-wing. There's quarrel, but I think you're missing a harder-to-detect intellectual respect as well.
Just imagine if the world had not been colonized. If we think the continent of Africa cannot get itself together in abject poverty and corruption, imagine the nation’s and regions of the world of how they would not have been modernized by The West.
It's quite unintentional but the logo "Hoover" in the side of the screen made me chuckle. FBI Director Hoover was a big part of the '60s - and not in a good way. The "Hoover" here was, of course, the sponsoring institution.
Buckley leaves out (or was ignorant of) the fact that Operation Vulture - the proposed American bombing campaign in support of the French at Dien Bien Phu - included B29s armed not only with conventional bombs, but nuclear weapons. Nearly every hawk asked to advise on the matter signaled for the green light, but luckily Eisenhower backed down. The idea that the only nation to have used nuclear arms on other humans - and who again and again agitated to so long as they held the monopoly on that power (MacArthur having already proposed nuclear strikes during the Korean War) - is the just and anti-imperialist actor here is absurd.
@LYinKansas it actually was true during ho chi minh's time, since as a dedicated stalinist, like mao, ho refused to condemn stalin when khruschev did and therefor moved into the chinese camp. it was only after ho died that north vietnam moved back into the soviet camp
11:20 Does the presenter feel any responsibility for his government overthrowing the democratically elected : Mossadeq (Iran, 1953 to plunder its oil), Arbenz (Guatemala 1954, making Guatemala safe for United Fruit Company), Lumumba (Congo, 1960 for the diamonds), Goulart (Brazil, 1964 for its rich natural resources), Sukarno (Indonesia, 1965), Greek Colonels (Greece 1967) , Allende (Chile, 1973) for imposing a 45-year dictatorship in South Korea(whose secret police was bigger than the NVKD), starting with Syngman Rhee in 1948, for arming, advising and training death-squads in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Colombia etc. , for invading Iraq for their oil (Chilcot Inquiry) for backing the invasion of East Timor, for the economic strangulation of Cuba(1956- today) ? Now that Cold War mists have dissolved, can we look at the facts ?
Dimitrios Mavridopoulos what a fucking revisionist for portraying everything through the lens of material gain instead of the necessity of stopping Soviet aggression and expansion
The problem being that most of these are worthy of being proud of. Given what the Left did (and in many cases, are still doing) in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Venezuela, Bolivia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Syria etc, perhaps the presenter might apologize for the US not doing enough. Certainly those US-trained "death squads" from the School of the Americas gave the narco-socialist of FARC their walking papers, to the ongoing gratitude and present prosperity of the Colombians, especially with respect to the Venezuelans, who had been behind the FARC all along. The infamous Mossadeq was trying to plunder Iraqi oil for the Bolsheviks, and was trying to remove Iraq's legitimate government in a coup. Allende ruined the economy of his country, in service to his Bolshevik paymasters, while Pinochet saved it (because of the latter, Chile is among the most prosperous countries in South America). As for criticizing NATO for saving at least part of Korea from the tender mercies of the exceptionally brutal Left fascists of Pyongyang, there is no need for further comment. Given Cuba's aggressive campaigns against countries all over the world, to include the selling of weapons and renting of mercenaries to terrorist factions, it is amazing to me that the US showed such restraint. The economic "strangulation" of Cuba consisted solely of the US refusing to trade with them, not surprising given the campaign of "expropriation" and looting of US assets in Cuba as soon as King Fidel assumed his socialist throne. That was the only country who refused to trade with them,and for a long time this Cuban socialist colony was heavily subsidized by their imperial Bolshevik patrons as well. What chutzpah it takes to kick US corporations out of Cuba, then to repeatedly blame the subsequent and easily predictable disaster of socialist economics on the refusal of US corporation to come back and "exploit" the Cuban people again. Can we look at the facts, which essentially makes an equivalence between the German National Socialists and their Russian Bolshevik on-again/off-again socialist comrades? We have long understood the National Socialist to be beyond redemption. We should have long ago understood the same for the left fascists of Marxism. That one of them would come here, with obscene buffoonery, and shamelessly try to defend their odious champions proves how far they are from acknowledging the facts. I doubt we'll ever get so much as an apology, despite all that's come to light after the fall of the Bolshevik Empire. Like neo-Nazis, they still think they're "rise again" to rob, rape, loot and kill with abandon, just like the Good Old Socialist Days.
This is two against one (Christopher). Reminds me when education and social critic Nat Hentoff was on Firing Line with Bill and the moderator snarky sarcasmo guy ganged on Nat. This Peter should know his damn place and quit arguing. WTF?! He's a moderator. Let him be happy with that!
I wish I didn't have to go back quite so many years for this level of discussion.
OMG, I watched these one on one debates with my Father. I was so young. Dad was a conservative but he said Hitchens was the smartest guy on the left & he was right. Still watching Dad.
An incredible display of right vs left. Two great minds. Both civilly making their points. We may never see a disciplined display like this again.
tubularbill Don't give up hope yet. Yes, the mainstream media have really dumbed down and sensationalised their programming due to the influence of advertisers who want to appeal to the greatest common denominator. There are however also new platforms where sharp, analytical people can meet. Ben Shapiro, Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson for example have all been on various podcasts like the Dave Rubin show. Maybe we will see a policy discussion between Harris and Shapiro in the near future. I think they could certainly have a civilised exchange of ideas.
Much appreciated. Yes you make some good sound points. Thank you!
tubularbill You are most welcome.
Superb conversation. Calm, rational, articulate.
Refreshing to watch two great minds, debate, agree & disagree. Respectfully.
Unfortunately, these kind of civilized discussions of controversial subjects is almost impossible in America now. Too many people think they already know the answers and don't want to listen.
Thank you Hoover Institution for these gems.
How lucky i am, a guy from Israel who has a chance to look at such quality content 20 years later now that i'm old enough.
Thank you for sharing it.
The wonderful thing about intelligent discourse, of which this is a good example, shouldn't only be about "With whom do I agree / disagree?" but appreciating how the parts articulate their positions regardless. ... I wish there was more of this. We, nowadays, tend to form black or white knee-jerk opinions basing the same on what we've heard and not necessarily what we know (or believe we know). Thanks for posting. This should be shown in schools.
Such a gentlemanly discussion. Fantastic.
Watching this shows how much dumber and impatient we've now become as a society.
What an absolute beautiful discussion. Great host, great topics, great speakers. Thank you Hoover
It's a real head scratcher how Hitchens could accurately describe the motivations of the Vietnam war, etc, but come out in support of overthrowing Saddam Hussein.
That was amazing on so many levels. We seem incapable of having conversations like this today as the shouters and haters dominate the media. Thank you. By the way, who was that youngster who moderated the discussion??? Peter was also brilliant. Obviously, Hitchens and Buckley are intellectual giants. Listening to them was profoundly satisfying as each made his case calmly and elegantly.
I am of the generation but slightly younger than the student leaders of the antiwar movement. I chose a different path and started at the US Naval Academy in 1969 when the war was in full swing but already winding down. I observed Nixon's and Kissinger's efforts to bring "peace with honor" in real time culminating in the unrestricted American bombing campaign known as the 1972 Christmas Bombings. The US unleashed hell on the North. Without doubt, in my view, the unrestricted warfare shocked the North Vietnamese nation top to bottom and brought the war to a negotiated settlement within days on January 27, 1973 in Paris. Up until then, the North Vietnamese were content to "negotiate" but resolve nothing. Negotiations went on fruitlessly for years. My view is that the North was employing a strategy of "attrition" against the Americans built on the theory that the Americans would in time lose heart and interest in the project and withdraw, thereby allowing the North to eventually achieve its objectives of defeating the South and unifying their country under a communist regime. This plan was working but was blown up by the "shock and awe" of the Christmas Bombings. As related in the book "When Hell was in Session" by Medal of Honor recipient and senior POW James Stockdale, the guards in the Hanoi Hilton transformed from arrogant torturers to best friends within days of realizing that continued unrestricted bombing would destroy the North and they would lose the war. As a result, the North folded and agreed to the same agreement Kissinger had been offering without progress for years. From a personal perspective, I watched in real time as the war "ended" at the negotiation table Paris. I had a personal interest in the facts on the ground because I was in my 4th year at Navy scheduled to graduate in June 1973 and be commissioned an Ensign in the US Navy. In short, I changed my career plans to become an A6 Intruder bombardier navigator with a direct role in the Vietnam War instead to become a cold warrior as a navigator/tactical coordinator in the P3-C Orion. I'm glad I did and feel pride in my small part of winning the Cold War without a shot.
As to the civil rights movement, I have always been a believer in MLK's vision of a color blind society as the way forward. That vision is under vicious assault as I write this, with many powerful voices rejecting color blindness in favor of the clearly racist concepts of identity politics and intersectionality. I consider both of these concepts cultural and societal poison.
In addition, I believe LBJ's great society programs have done more harm than good. In Amity Shlaes' brilliant retrospective "Great Society: A New History" she lays out a persuasive case that the great society has been a failure on every level despite honorable intentions. Robert Woodson has argued persuasively that the substantial progress blacks were making prior to 1965, when the great society was enacted into federal law, were stalled and reversed by LBJ's legislation. As a specific example, because of great society programs we now have a multigenerational black under class where out of wedlock births are approaching 100% leading to black enclaves where crime and violence, especially black on black murder is out of control, schools are failing massively and many other social pathologies abound. Even card carrying liberals like Bill Clinton acknowledge this failure in his famous volt face to "end welfare as we know it." This project has never been fully realized and the current administration seems bent on going back to old failed welfare policies where young mothers, especially in the black underclass effectively "marry the government." This has led to the multigenerational pathologies mentioned above.
Thank you again. This video is amazing.
A proud American
Measured discussion, the weapon of a more noble age.
A more noble age? The 90's?
Then you haven't watched Buckley in some of his debates. I'd say he has mellowed out a whole lot.
I certainly agree with you and love the wording you took.
Two brilliant men. If only we had them today, our world might not be so confused.
What a video; thank you for posting. Two of the greatest political minds of my lifetime
Wow, Peter Robison really shows his cards in this one! I do like his blue shirt and yellow tie at the beginning.
Great debate from two of my favorite intellectuals.
This is probably the best example of the dialectic there could ever be.
Can you imagine an anti-war socialist having reasoned debate with a much older social and fiscal conservative in 2016?
I think the mid-late 90's was about the only time in my lifetime where that could generally happen, though Buckley and Galbraith had also made a good run at it in earlier decades. Today, both anti-war socialists and conservatives are pretty much irrelevant, and no one would bother to watch if they did debate.
The mid-late 90s was a very narrow historical era after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and before 9/11 and the many converging forces of this century gained strength when political rhetoric cooled for awhile. I mean, Bill Clinton's sex scandal dominated the news for two years, I can't imagine that today.
Morphing Reality Well after the Crisis of 2008, the conservative would not have a argument. See, what conservatives want is some kind renewal of life in the 1950s or even the 1870s. What you dont understand the 21st Century is ready to pound your down down.
You are exactly the kind of person who can't have a deep philosophical discussion with somebody who disagrees with you.
Buckley was the last real conservative left. The new breed of conservatives are the radical fascist christians that Goldwater warned society about. As did Frank Zappa. You can't reason with a cultmember.
NO ONE is/was/willbe as adept as the Hitch was to make lascivious jokes, especially when someone else starts it.
I'm really tired of seeing 5 different mostly banal people hunched over Wolf Blitzer or John King, rehashing the same insipidly frustrating shit ad infinitum. Just let the actually knowledgeable and insightful answer (arguably slanted, I mean it is the Hoover Institution) questions from a host without an unplugged vacuum for a head.
Thanks for posting!
Wonderful discussion between two very intelligent men. William Buckley will always be the man who told Chomsky that he would, I'm paraphrasing here, "...Punch you in the goddamn face." Both are interesting polemic figures.
Thanks for the post.
Big regret of mine was not going to a convention back in DC that Hitchens attended... he passed that same here :/:/
Definitely one of the best raconteurs of our time
I remember watching William F. Buckley, Jr. on television. I still do when I can. Always interesting and definitely a great writer. Peter Robinson did a splendid job interviewing two very difficult people to interview.
There is a wonderful episode of Uncommon Knowledge featuring Christopher Hitchens and Timothy Garton Ash. I think it's called "Literature and Politics" or something like that. I would love to see it posted to RUclips.
As an anti-Vietnam war protester in the Sixties, I was heavily influenced by our Oregon U.S.Senator Wayne Morse, a man with a huge intellect, who was one of only two senator in the US Senate, who from the the beginning of our involvement and especially after the Gulf of Tonkin "false flag" incident, spoke out continually against the war. We didn't believe the "Domino Theory" that attempted to persuade us that if Vietnam fell to the communists all of southeast Asia would fall as well. We also believed that we would get bogged down and not be successful in winning a land war fought in the jungles of Vietnam, specially since the South Vietnam army lacked the will to fight for their country.As it turned out, we were correct. Sadly, Senator Morse was reviled as anti-american for his commitment to the withdrawal of our military and was never honored for his unwavering leadership in bringing the war to an end. Having lunch with him once was an unforgettable experience.
Two great minds that are polar opposites. They were not appreciated until they were gone. Tis a pity.
So true, on all counts.
Wally Smith Unfortunately, Hitchens' success with 'God is Not Great' made him known to many but also known *only* for his religious polemics to many (myself included). I didn't pay much attention to him at the time because I wasn't much interested in that debate. Only after his death did I find out about his huge output of political and social commentary, which I find far more interesting personally.
***** Noted and corrected.
They were both appreciated while they were still around, maybe not by you, but by millions of others...
Kellen Hunter-La Voy
Yes, but as far as I understand it, Hitchens' fame was mostly confined to Britain until God Is Not Great.
I admire Buckley for being able to admit he was wrong. You can tell that his opposition to the Civil Rights Act was something that he was ashamed of.
He was a bit mealy mouthed on this point - THE great moral question of his day on which he failed. This is why conservatism, maybe unfairly, was so untrusted in those and succeeding times.
Maybe in his reply, yes, but you can tell just by looking at him that it was something he deeply regretted.
Alec Edwards I got the feeling from him that he was only sorry that in the end things didn’t turn out the way he hoped they would. And the fact that he flat out said that he didn’t think the civil rights movement did any good pretty much solidifies my feelings towards him.
Still waiting one two smart minds to fill these guys boots.
I suspect we will be waiting a long time.
Pat TheHombre Given how people are a product of their time it's difficult to compare. I'm not saying he will fill their shoes but Ben Shapiro is looking promising. Even people who don't agree with him say he is really smart. Give it time.
As an atheist conservative, I wish they had also discussed atheism vs religion
Liberals and Conservatives trust the government too much. Just in different ways.
Hitchens seemed much more happier back then..even conciliatory I would say than in his later years...they say time mellows a person but Hitchens was the exception to that rule.
have you seen him yelling at Ed Meese? haha
No...I'll have to see that one..lol
3:45 is when it gets good :p
Mike Orsini I truly yearn the day I can call a former Attorney General a liar, cheat and a thief on national television :D
Mike Orsini
He does seem happy. I loved the little bit of banter about the left being masturbatory at which point Hitchens rather that refuting the accusation runs with it much to the chagrin of the host. priceless they were such great guests.
Interesting conversation to have in what seems to be a garage full of random crap.
I love the props at the beginning.
Two things are very different now, 1. a conservative like Buckley would be banned from all media nowadays, and 2. progressives nowadays couldn't construct rational arguments like Hitchens did, instead they would call everyone "racist" and upturn the table and walk off crying, and the interviewer would declare the progressive the winner (or be sacked).
This is gold.
Both these men are no longer alive :(. How upsetting.
Only 20 minutes? Please sir, can I have some more.
Two brilliant men allowed to flesh out their opinions. What ever happened to that??
"You're not going to let him get away with calling us an Empire are you?" Of course America is an empire. Just because America isnt official named an empire, doesnt mean it displays every sign of imperialist politics, colonial politics. Any nation, which controls other nations by threat of violence or financial destruction is an empire.
I am seriously pissed that they cut Hitchens off at 7:20!
I don't care for this interview cut the way it is. I'll have to look for the interview in its entirety.
when buckly begins to speak,the look on hitchens is like...uh oh
I’m not sure if Buckley’s argument for disagreeing with the idea that the Civil Rights Movement was a noble moment in American history is very persuasive or even tenable. If America’s original sin was the blatant and gross incompatibility between slavery and the Bill of Rights, the civil rights movement seems like a thematic indication of resolve. Whether or not the legislation was totally harmonious with the constitutional process shouldn’t be relevant given the unharmonious nature of the issue.
to me it always seems like buckley sounds way more sophisticated than what he actually says
Loving the use of props in the opening.
The irony of the anti-war movement being violent
Brilliant questions
Watch Firing line with Buckley and Timothy Leary
.
"United States at peace abroad and at home", well not quite.
I am a war baby, born before the baby boom following the end of WW2.
I was still at Uni in Oz when the baby boomers arrived like a mouse plague, devouring everything in their paths believing superior numbers induced or indicated infallibility.
I listened to their ceaseless monotonous gabble and after I graduated in Medicine decided to act, sick of the armchair revolutionaries pontification and virtue signalling.
I went to the warzone, worked with SCF and charities with one thing in mind, find out which side was in the right and which were the evildoers, quite prepared to join the Vietcong if they were the ones.
I found that the population of ordinary people in South Vietnam wanted nothing to do with Communism and hated and feared Ho Chi Minh.
Hitchins, like Hanoi Jane, was a traitor to European civilisation and representative of the rest who caused so much political damage to the war effort that the American forces were undermined by fifth columnists and the war was lost by default.
It is now in the public domain that the Vietcong were beaten in everything but the last surrender or retreat back to the North.
I have always loved Christopher, but his comments disbelieving that in the 60's and even up to the time of the interview in the 90's, the story that the Soviets and the Chinese aims were expansionist (around 8:00), indicate that he hadn't learnt that much about communism since he was a 19 year old in Cuba. Very disappointing...... maybe he recovered later in the interview, but I was turned off.
Peter Robertson has aged fantastically
WHATISUTUBE i think it's robinson.....at least thats how wikipedia has it. it might be a mistake.
I miss Mr. Buckley, I credit him as a significant factor in my discovery of conservatism.
do you have other people i should look into if i want to discover modern conservatism myself?
God rest your soul Christopher Hitchens - lol. Wish you were still with us.
What a thoroughly impressive debate. I am a fan of Hitch but I do think he was a little outclassed by WFB this time - a man I'm not aware of but understand has passed...it's a shame they both have for obvious reasons.
Hitchens is the greatest polemicist of all time
Good discussion.
I don't understand how you have come to this conclusion. I think the differences the "two sides" had were very deep and real. For starters one side felt America was an exceptional nation that needed to mold the world in it's image. The other felt our forays into other nations resulting in war was akin to genocide.
This is not a minor difference of opinion.
The host has aged really well.
14:57 Goldwater thought "enemy couldn't sustain casualties"
N. Vietnamese General Giap has said in interviews that the Tet Offensive resulted in a severe loss for his side, contrary to its portrayal in the Western media. Our side didn't follow it up for various reasons. So Goldwater's earlier optimism was probably ultimately justified.
General Gaip said, we have lost the war on the ground, but we will win the war at Paris. Walter Cronkite said during Tet that the war was lost when actually at that point USA victory was almost achieved and was lost with troop reductions
raygon8 of course , according to you we should th ave stayed there ok indefinitely. You probably believe that we would have won the war in Iraq had we simply kept hundreds of thousands of troops there indefinitely . It is this imperialistic gung ho neocon warmongering and lust for regime change and endless war that has screwed up the middle east and north Africa. Had Saddam and Gaddafi never been overthrown, ISIS would have never been born, the region would be vastly safer and more stable than it is and countless civilians both in the middle east and in Europe and the US who have been killed by terrorists : they would all be alive , not to mention the thousands of mostly poor/working class US troops who died unnecessarily.
MLK is over-rated. The real heroes of the civil rights movement was the millions of people who stood up, protested, boycotted, wrote their congressman and made personal sacrifices for a larger good. King was wealthy, had an entourage, a girl in every port, millions listened when he spoke, etc. He paid with his life, but I think we should have a civil rights day, not an MLK day.
How can you tell when a Bonesman is lying to you?
You can't.
What a treat.
William Buckley was also one of the most subtely stylish men. Usually a white shirt, with a classic tie and nuetral suit. From the mid 60's to the late 90's, you never look at his clothing and think it looks dated. That's timeless and classy style. Unlike the goon at the start who looks every inch 1998.
Wow, I can actually comment on Hoover institution lol
Who's here in 2019?
Please be quiet, Peter. You always look like you are ready to interrupt at any moment, and you've been doing it for decades now.
When Buckley had people on his show, he had the good sense to let them talk and not interrupt them or get in their space. This guy doing the interview, he keeps interrupting Hitchens and tapping his arm to get his attention. It's annoying. Back in the day, we had Buckley as the voice of the Conservatives, nowadays it's Sean Hannity.
+MondoBeno , I hope you're not trying to compare the two as equals.
MondoBeno - Riiiight! Can you imagine Hannity trying to have a conversation with Leftists today who would offer their own opinions? Not a chance. The only things Leftists have to say today are worn out talking points. NO original thought comes out of their mouths. Only partisan “stay within the narrative” dupes. Laughable.
What are you taking about WFB constantly interrupted albeit he was funnier
16:52 Damn. That is a scrutinizing look, lol.
I watched this in 2020 and just thought 'we are doomed'. Where is the philosopher of this age? And more importantly even, who is willing to debate them on open terms?
buckley still sharp here seems very tired...and time as proven him incorrect...though i would argue the conservative party he represented no longer exists.
hitchens as usual is very brave and contrasts himself by his praise for martin luther king and his ability to hold american leaders accountable...labeling their actions crimes.
there is something unending about the Vietnam war era and it feels like opportunities were missed..though it could be we just are suffering from what was achieved since we are more a divided country than ever..and the powers that be seem to want that.
i cant help wondering if it always comes back to one thing...the idea constantly reinforced that war and only war....is what makes the country great.
What was the French term that Christopher used to refer to himself? Swason retire?
soixante-huitard, French for 68er as in 1968/member of significant social movements of 1968.
Both excellent men missed now.
While many people mistake me for a conservative, because I appreciate the sharp wit and terrific ability to get to the meat of a subject, I am actually a Libertarian. Where I felt as I just described about Mr. Buckley, I have NOT felt anything le that about Mr. Hannity.
The dude's face at 5:56...priceless.
A penny for their thoughts today.
At least Mr Buckley has the decency and civility not to scoff and show his obvious contempt for Mr Hitchens as this terrible presenter does. You're supposed to be moderating. Manners please!
+Hop Jump I agree for the most part. Buckley doesn't exactly mask his contempt at points - artful disdain was always one of his idiosyncrasies - but the sheer red-faced hatred the moderator has for Hitchens and the New Left is astonishingly revolting. Watch beginning at 11:43 when the moderator's voice quickens from the desire to squeeze a mea culpa out of Hitchens for essentially questioning something when he was in his 20s. At 12:30, the pen - in a not so unphallic display - comes out (a la Buckley in his heyday, mind you) in an attempt to be mightier than both sword and word.
Haha, well spotted with the pen, a la Buckley indeed. He did do it with a certain style and wit, and Hitchens had his own brand of ingenious comebacks. The 'moderator' here seems to be doing the old ad hominem thing. A weakness in the first place, but at least have some wits about you.
Buckley did _not_ feel contempt for Hitchens. Quite the opposite. View the videos of the other discussions between these two and it will be immediately obvious that the two men had the greatest respect for each other. You confuse disagreement, even disdain, for a man's ideas or statements with contempt for the man himself: these are very different things.
DieFlabbergast
My comment was actually directed at the presenter/mediator, not Mr Buckley. I completely agree with you, there was great respect between the two.
Peter Robinson and Christopher Hitchens were good friends, but there was indeed a massive political gulf between them; Hitchens, at the time of recording, still regarded himself as a socialist while Robinson is firmly right-wing. There's quarrel, but I think you're missing a harder-to-detect intellectual respect as well.
Buckley is great as always but with age he has lost a bit of the energy and charisma he had in the 70s
Just imagine if the world had not been colonized. If we think the continent of Africa cannot get itself together in abject poverty and corruption, imagine the nation’s and regions of the world of how they would not have been modernized by The West.
Good stuff
It's quite unintentional but the logo "Hoover" in the side of the screen made me chuckle. FBI Director Hoover was a big part of the '60s - and not in a good way. The "Hoover" here was, of course, the sponsoring institution.
Buckley leaves out (or was ignorant of) the fact that Operation Vulture - the proposed American bombing campaign in support of the French at Dien Bien Phu - included B29s armed not only with conventional bombs, but nuclear weapons. Nearly every hawk asked to advise on the matter signaled for the green light, but luckily Eisenhower backed down.
The idea that the only nation to have used nuclear arms on other humans - and who again and again agitated to so long as they held the monopoly on that power (MacArthur having already proposed nuclear strikes during the Korean War) - is the just and anti-imperialist actor here is absurd.
Great. Shame about the editing. How far we've come from the dark days of television time slots.
His intro is hilarious
WFB is my hero
@LYinKansas it actually was true during ho chi minh's time, since as a dedicated stalinist, like mao, ho refused to condemn stalin when khruschev did and therefor moved into the chinese camp. it was only after ho died that north vietnam moved back into the soviet camp
Right. Why doesn't someone write "Das Sociale" (or the equivalent in respectable literate German)?
Was Hitchens right about Princess Diana and Mother Theresa?
Let's just say that a little study on the matter will repay the effort. .
+floyd pitt He might of been a tad harsh on Diana, but he is accurate. Especially on Mother Theresa.
Peter Robinson is insufferable here.
An obtuse, uncritical , and uninformed mouthpiece of the establishment, like so many right wing and so-called left wing commentators
Buckley’s accent- I need to know.
11:20 Does the presenter feel any responsibility for his government overthrowing the democratically elected : Mossadeq (Iran, 1953 to plunder its oil), Arbenz (Guatemala 1954, making Guatemala safe for United Fruit Company), Lumumba (Congo, 1960 for the diamonds), Goulart (Brazil, 1964 for its rich natural resources), Sukarno (Indonesia, 1965), Greek Colonels (Greece 1967) , Allende (Chile, 1973) for imposing a 45-year dictatorship in South Korea(whose secret police was bigger than the NVKD), starting with Syngman Rhee in 1948, for arming, advising and training death-squads in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Colombia etc. , for invading Iraq for their oil (Chilcot Inquiry) for backing the invasion of East Timor, for the economic strangulation of Cuba(1956- today) ? Now that Cold War mists have dissolved, can we look at the facts ?
Dimitrios Mavridopoulos what a fucking revisionist for portraying everything through the lens of material gain instead of the necessity of stopping Soviet aggression and expansion
The problem being that most of these are worthy of being proud of. Given what the Left did (and in many cases, are still doing) in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Venezuela, Bolivia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Syria etc, perhaps the presenter might apologize for the US not doing enough. Certainly those US-trained "death squads" from the School of the Americas gave the narco-socialist of FARC their walking papers, to the ongoing gratitude and present prosperity of the Colombians, especially with respect to the Venezuelans, who had been behind the FARC all along. The infamous Mossadeq was trying to plunder Iraqi oil for the Bolsheviks, and was trying to remove Iraq's legitimate government in a coup. Allende ruined the economy of his country, in service to his Bolshevik paymasters, while Pinochet saved it (because of the latter, Chile is among the most prosperous countries in South America). As for criticizing NATO for saving at least part of Korea from the tender mercies of the exceptionally brutal Left fascists of Pyongyang, there is no need for further comment.
Given Cuba's aggressive campaigns against countries all over the world, to include the selling of weapons and renting of mercenaries to terrorist factions, it is amazing to me that the US showed such restraint. The economic "strangulation" of Cuba consisted solely of the US refusing to trade with them, not surprising given the campaign of "expropriation" and looting of US assets in Cuba as soon as King Fidel assumed his socialist throne. That was the only country who refused to trade with them,and for a long time this Cuban socialist colony was heavily subsidized by their imperial Bolshevik patrons as well. What chutzpah it takes to kick US corporations out of Cuba, then to repeatedly blame the subsequent and easily predictable disaster of socialist economics on the refusal of US corporation to come back and "exploit" the Cuban people again.
Can we look at the facts, which essentially makes an equivalence between the German National Socialists and their Russian Bolshevik on-again/off-again socialist comrades? We have long understood the National Socialist to be beyond redemption. We should have long ago understood the same for the left fascists of Marxism. That one of them would come here, with obscene buffoonery, and shamelessly try to defend their odious champions proves how far they are from acknowledging the facts. I doubt we'll ever get so much as an apology, despite all that's come to light after the fall of the Bolshevik Empire. Like neo-Nazis, they still think they're "rise again" to rob, rape, loot and kill with abandon, just like the Good Old Socialist Days.
Why are anti war movements always so violent?
Buckley is so annoyed with the interviewer. :XD
What did he pre-judge? This whole conversation is about the past.
They should clone these two brains.
18:22 lol
Was 1998 a hundred a fifty years ago?!?!??
I am on Bill Buckley's side.
Yevgeniy Zharinov
on what lol he ends up thinking the war was wrong
@@weewee2169 probably on that too.
What's the name of the host?
This is two against one (Christopher). Reminds me when education and social critic Nat Hentoff was on Firing Line with Bill and the moderator snarky sarcasmo guy ganged on Nat. This Peter should know his damn place and quit arguing. WTF?! He's a moderator. Let him be happy with that!