On the Right

New York, Feb. 11—The Camelot types are complaining these days that Teddy is being painted with only the warts showing, that the 7 o’clock portion of the television news devoted to Kennedy tends to be devoted to that day’s ineptitude. Perhaps they will understand how some of us felt about the treatment of Goldwater in 1964, the not insignificant difference being that Goldwater really hadn’t ever been to Chappaquiddick before, and that his answers tended in interesting contrast to Mr. Kennedy’s to be straightforward (nuke the Chinks, sell TVA, abolish Social Security that kind of thing, if you go in for Herblockian reductionism).

I submit it isn’t easy to avoid certain criticisms of Mr. Kennedy. One recalls that probably the favorite joke of the Camelot set back in the Eisenhower years was making fun of Ike’s syntax, concerning which there was a lot to make fun of. On the other hand, Time magazine last week picked up what must surely enter the Guinness Book of Records under the category of Confusion, Utter. It was the Senator’s reply to the question what would he as President do to cope with the Soviet Union. The answer: “Well, I think we need a foreign policy which is tied to our national security interests, which are tied to intelligent interests for the United States, that are tied to energy interests, which are tied to a sound economy here in the United States and an energy policy that is going to free us from heavy dependence to the Persian Gulf countries and to OPEC, which is strongly, which has the strength and the support of the American people, and which is predictable and certain, which has a down side to it in terms of disincentives to the Soviet Union for actions which are contrary to the, uh, to uh, a standard of both international behavior and also has incentives to the Soviet Union, uh . . .” but, charity beginning at home, I shan’t go on, though Senator Kennedy’s Master Plan for Coping with the Soviet Union does go on another fifty words or so.

About the Author

William F. Buckley Jr.

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

Featured Tags

New York, Feb. 11—The Camelot types are complaining these days that Teddy is being painted with only the warts showing, that the 7 o’clock portion of the television news devoted to Kennedy tends to be devoted to that day’s ineptitude. Perhaps they will understand how some of us felt about the treatment of Goldwater in 1964, the not insignificant difference being that Goldwater really hadn’t ever been to Chappaquiddick before, and that his answers tended in interesting contrast to Mr. Kennedy’s to be straightforward (nuke the Chinks, sell TVA, abolish Social Security that kind of thing, if you go in for Herblockian reductionism).

I submit it isn’t easy to avoid certain criticisms of Mr. Kennedy. One recalls that probably the favorite joke of the Camelot set back in the Eisenhower years was making fun of Ike’s syntax, concerning which there was a lot to make fun of. On the other hand, Time magazine last week picked up what must surely enter the Guinness Book of Records under the category of Confusion, Utter. It was the Senator’s reply to the question what would he as President do to cope with the Soviet Union. The answer: “Well, I think we need a foreign policy which is tied to our national security interests, which are tied to intelligent interests for the United States, that are tied to energy interests, which are tied to a sound economy here in the United States and an energy policy that is going to free us from heavy dependence to the Persian Gulf countries and to OPEC, which is strongly, which has the strength and the support of the American people, and which is predictable and certain, which has a down side to it in terms of disincentives to the Soviet Union for actions which are contrary to the, uh, to uh, a standard of both international behavior and also has incentives to the Soviet Union, uh . . .” but, charity beginning at home, I shan’t go on, though Senator Kennedy’s Master Plan for Coping with the Soviet Union does go on another fifty words or so.