An Evening With Jack Paar.

SAANENMOSER, SWITZERLAND My colleagues have sent me the transcript of several Jack Paar shows, at which he and others celebrated my inhumanity to man, among other things, though to be sure devoting roughly equal time to my unintelligibility. Would I care to comment? Well, having read the transcript, yes, I would. For one thing, one might as well set the record straight; and besides, the time is ripe for giving a little thought to the phenomenon of boastful resistance to thought. The mistake is often made of assuming that the audience of Jack Paar is as loose-minded as he is. Several of my friends, making that assumption, counseled me not to accept Mr. Paar’s urgently-worded invitation to appear (to answer charges made against me by Gore Vidal). If you are not show biz, they said, the only way you can make a successful appearance on the Jack Paar show is to play the part of an amiable common man, and flatter the stuffing out of Paar. Well, I didn’t believe it, and still don’t: but I distinguish between Paar’s audience and himself. It is probably true that one cannot succeed with Paar without that unctuous self-ingratiation which is the trademark of so many of his most successful guests: but the audience doesn’t seem to mind a few minutes’ serious talk, cast at an adult level; and so the real question is, can you succeed with the audience if you have not succeeded with Paar? Well, certainly he will do the very best he can to keep that from happening. I know: I tried thinking on his program, instead of emoting, and he was so traumatized it took him two and one-half shows, several gag writers, half a dozen bald lies, and a couple of character assassins to restore his composure.

I was on the show Wednesday, January 31, to answer the charge that I had “attacked” the Pope as being “too left-wing.” I was introduced to Paar just before the show, and we chatted together amiably for about fifteen minutes in his dressing room. What did I especially want to say? he asked. I want to set the record straight on what national review did say about Mater et Magistra, I answered. What else? Anything, or nothing, as you like, I said—it’s your show (I needn’t have reminded him of that). Well, he said, what about the John Birch Society? Anything, I repeated. I requested only that if I were asked a question that called for a complex answer, I be given as much as one minute to answer it. Perfectly fine, he said. “I want you to leave this show feeling good—that’s what I want.” You know, he confided, one of the reasons why people think we give more breaks to Liberals and leftwingers is because we have more of them on the show. But that’s only because there are more of them around, more of them who are interesting people, as people. On the other side, he said warmly, “there’s just Goldwater and you.” I smiled prettily, and mumbled something about my willingness to draw him up a somewhat larger list.

About the Author

William F. Buckley Jr.

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

Featured Tags

Manage following

William F. Buckley Jr.

SAANENMOSER, SWITZERLAND My colleagues have sent me the transcript of several Jack Paar shows, at which he and others celebrated my inhumanity to man, among other things, though to be sure devoting roughly equal time to my unintelligibility. Would I care to comment? Well, having read the transcript, yes, I would. For one thing, one might as well set the record straight; and besides, the time is ripe for giving a little thought to the phenomenon of boastful resistance to thought. The mistake is often made of assuming that the audience of Jack Paar is as loose-minded as he is. Several of my friends, making that assumption, counseled me not to accept Mr. Paar’s urgently-worded invitation to appear (to answer charges made against me by Gore Vidal). If you are not show biz, they said, the only way you can make a successful appearance on the Jack Paar show is to play the part of an amiable common man, and flatter the stuffing out of Paar. Well, I didn’t believe it, and still don’t: but I distinguish between Paar’s audience and himself. It is probably true that one cannot succeed with Paar without that unctuous self-ingratiation which is the trademark of so many of his most successful guests: but the audience doesn’t seem to mind a few minutes’ serious talk, cast at an adult level; and so the real question is, can you succeed with the audience if you have not succeeded with Paar? Well, certainly he will do the very best he can to keep that from happening. I know: I tried thinking on his program, instead of emoting, and he was so traumatized it took him two and one-half shows, several gag writers, half a dozen bald lies, and a couple of character assassins to restore his composure.

I was on the show Wednesday, January 31, to answer the charge that I had “attacked” the Pope as being “too left-wing.” I was introduced to Paar just before the show, and we chatted together amiably for about fifteen minutes in his dressing room. What did I especially want to say? he asked. I want to set the record straight on what national review did say about Mater et Magistra, I answered. What else? Anything, or nothing, as you like, I said—it’s your show (I needn’t have reminded him of that). Well, he said, what about the John Birch Society? Anything, I repeated. I requested only that if I were asked a question that called for a complex answer, I be given as much as one minute to answer it. Perfectly fine, he said. “I want you to leave this show feeling good—that’s what I want.” You know, he confided, one of the reasons why people think we give more breaks to Liberals and leftwingers is because we have more of them on the show. But that’s only because there are more of them around, more of them who are interesting people, as people. On the other side, he said warmly, “there’s just Goldwater and you.” I smiled prettily, and mumbled something about my willingness to draw him up a somewhat larger list.