On the Right

London, Sept. 8—The headline in last Sunday’s London Observer read, “Arcane Aphorisms of Candidate Reagan.” It is difficult to know just when Mr. Reagan last gave birth to an arcane aphorism, so the editors help by supplying a subhead, which reads, “Anthony Holden reports from Washington on the amazing asides of the Republican candidate which are diverting Americans in their quest for a leader.” There, now, that’s more like it. The Times writes, “Mr. Carter finds attack is the best defense . . And, inevitably, we discover that the press in England fascinates itself by what it deems Mr. Reagan’s voluptuarian attraction to “simplistic and empty formulations.”

On television earlier this week, a well-known British anchorman asked a visiting American whether indeed that American backed Reagan, to which the answer was yes. Well, if you back Ronald Reagan, why didn’t you back George Wallace? The American—an impatient-type—leaned back in his chair and said that it was a pity, really, how little many British knew about American politics. He reminisced that only a week earlier he had discovered that a British television commentator, whose fame is roughly the equal in his own country of Walter Cronkite’s in ours, had wagered Alistair Cooke in 1952 that Adlai Stevenson would win the election. All right, anybody can be wrong about an election. But get this: he gave Cooke 5 to I odds! The gentleman in question had been victimized by his own propaganda.

About the Author

William F. Buckley Jr.

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

Featured Tags

Presidential Election

London, Sept. 8—The headline in last Sunday’s London Observer read, “Arcane Aphorisms of Candidate Reagan.” It is difficult to know just when Mr. Reagan last gave birth to an arcane aphorism, so the editors help by supplying a subhead, which reads, “Anthony Holden reports from Washington on the amazing asides of the Republican candidate which are diverting Americans in their quest for a leader.” There, now, that’s more like it. The Times writes, “Mr. Carter finds attack is the best defense . . And, inevitably, we discover that the press in England fascinates itself by what it deems Mr. Reagan’s voluptuarian attraction to “simplistic and empty formulations.”

On television earlier this week, a well-known British anchorman asked a visiting American whether indeed that American backed Reagan, to which the answer was yes. Well, if you back Ronald Reagan, why didn’t you back George Wallace? The American—an impatient-type—leaned back in his chair and said that it was a pity, really, how little many British knew about American politics. He reminisced that only a week earlier he had discovered that a British television commentator, whose fame is roughly the equal in his own country of Walter Cronkite’s in ours, had wagered Alistair Cooke in 1952 that Adlai Stevenson would win the election. All right, anybody can be wrong about an election. But get this: he gave Cooke 5 to I odds! The gentleman in question had been victimized by his own propaganda.