Over the course of this year, the centenary of William F. Buckley’s birth, we will republish an article by him weekly. This week’s piece explores the then-growing rift between the Buckley and Bircher factions on the right.
In the past few weeks a number of conservative spokesmen whose credentials and sincerity are unassailable have made public statements about Mr. Robert Welch, founder of the John Birch Society, calling into question his qualifications to lead a national anti-Communist and anti-statist movement. Russell Kirk, replying to a letter addressed to him by an executive of the John Birch Society, writes that he knows Mr. Welch to be a “likeable, honest, courageous, energetic man” who nevertheless “by silliness and injustice of utterance” has become “the kiss of death” for any conservative enterprise. Congressman Walter Judd said in Minneapolis that he considers Mr. Welch’s judgment so flawed as to disqualify him from leadership of an effective anti-Communist movement. Senator Barry Goldwater said he feels Mr. Welch should resign; and, should he refuse to do so, the Society should disband and reorganize under different leadership. Fulton Lewis Jr., at the Human Events Conference in Washington, criticized Mr. Welch’s direction of the Society. And, it is widely known, some members of the National Council of the John Birch Society are at their wits’ end, and one or two have quietly resigned. Their dilemma is, reduced to the simplest terms: How can the John Birch Society be an effective political instrument while it is led by a man whose views on current affairs are, at so many critical points, so critically different from their own, and, for that matter, so far removed from common sense?
Comments