On the Right

New York, Feb. 9—The three central figures of the past fortnight were two men who believe in transcendence, and one materialist. Teng Hsiao-ping occupied great attention wherever he toured. The creators of the greatest material successes in the extra-hallucinatory world took the wizened old Marxist around and about and showed him factories, hotels, hospitals, college campuses, and merchandise marts that, Teng knew, were several generations away from the reach of the Chinese people: and available to them only if Teng agreed to put Marxist theology in the deep-freeze; or, perhaps, to leave it around as a kind of terminological adornment to which the new reality would adjust. Russians have taught us here and there how to emulate capitalist forms while superimposing socialist vocabulary. Teng, if he succeeds, will do it better in China. He was, meanwhile, true to form, observant but not visibly impressed. He is after all an older man than Ronald Reagan would be if he retired after a full term as President of the United States, and can carry his vision for only so long. Teng saw that no one in the United States was capable of turning the tumblers to open up the secrets of what he was thinking. But, as a com; mitted materialist, he must have seen that, in the United States, the nearest thing to the materialization of Marxist dreams has come about—under capitalism.

In Iran, the Ayatollah returned, and everywhere he was hailed as the spiritual liberator. Liberator from what? This is not, really, a question that has been coherently answered by the critics of the Shah. It would be simple if the Shah had set himself up as an idol, requiring that he be worshipped in the manner of the old Oriental emperors who thought themselves divine. But the Shah believes in Islam. He did, to be sure, violate some of the ancient strictures of Moslem life, even as most Jews in Israel turn the pages quickly on the book of Judges. But Islam acknowledges five moments during the day when one’s attention goes exclusively to the worship of Allah. The balance of the day is devoted to struggling with the world we live in. The Shah struggled with that world, giving little thought to political liberty. But it can hardly be supposed at this juncture that that in the Shah which offended his people most was that heliocentrism he insisted on. Because the Ayatollah is asking, if one reads him correctly, for no less for himself. Political liberty is not the apparent objective of this representative of Islam. But he commands, at the moment, the devotion of the entire population of Iran who understand themselves as forswearing the secularism of the Shah. Teng is in America as a voyeur of the material benefits of the acknowledgment of secularist appetites. The Ayatollah is in Iran to preach the transcendence of God: but to insist that Islam—the subjection to Allah—be done through the instrument of the State. He is the world’s leading theocrat.

About the Author

William F. Buckley Jr.

William F. Buckley Jr. founded National Review magazine in 1955.

Featured Tags

New York, Feb. 9—The three central figures of the past fortnight were two men who believe in transcendence, and one materialist. Teng Hsiao-ping occupied great attention wherever he toured. The creators of the greatest material successes in the extra-hallucinatory world took the wizened old Marxist around and about and showed him factories, hotels, hospitals, college campuses, and merchandise marts that, Teng knew, were several generations away from the reach of the Chinese people: and available to them only if Teng agreed to put Marxist theology in the deep-freeze; or, perhaps, to leave it around as a kind of terminological adornment to which the new reality would adjust. Russians have taught us here and there how to emulate capitalist forms while superimposing socialist vocabulary. Teng, if he succeeds, will do it better in China. He was, meanwhile, true to form, observant but not visibly impressed. He is after all an older man than Ronald Reagan would be if he retired after a full term as President of the United States, and can carry his vision for only so long. Teng saw that no one in the United States was capable of turning the tumblers to open up the secrets of what he was thinking. But, as a com; mitted materialist, he must have seen that, in the United States, the nearest thing to the materialization of Marxist dreams has come about—under capitalism.

In Iran, the Ayatollah returned, and everywhere he was hailed as the spiritual liberator. Liberator from what? This is not, really, a question that has been coherently answered by the critics of the Shah. It would be simple if the Shah had set himself up as an idol, requiring that he be worshipped in the manner of the old Oriental emperors who thought themselves divine. But the Shah believes in Islam. He did, to be sure, violate some of the ancient strictures of Moslem life, even as most Jews in Israel turn the pages quickly on the book of Judges. But Islam acknowledges five moments during the day when one’s attention goes exclusively to the worship of Allah. The balance of the day is devoted to struggling with the world we live in. The Shah struggled with that world, giving little thought to political liberty. But it can hardly be supposed at this juncture that that in the Shah which offended his people most was that heliocentrism he insisted on. Because the Ayatollah is asking, if one reads him correctly, for no less for himself. Political liberty is not the apparent objective of this representative of Islam. But he commands, at the moment, the devotion of the entire population of Iran who understand themselves as forswearing the secularism of the Shah. Teng is in America as a voyeur of the material benefits of the acknowledgment of secularist appetites. The Ayatollah is in Iran to preach the transcendence of God: but to insist that Islam—the subjection to Allah—be done through the instrument of the State. He is the world’s leading theocrat.