On the Right

Miami, Aug. 22—Ronald Reagan delivered what was in effect the keynote address at the Republican Convention. It had everything. It ranked with the great performances of Walter Judd in 1960 and Clare Boothe Luce in 1948. It did cause listeners here and again to wince: and that is an interesting psychological datum. An influential supporter of George McGovern, who listened to the speech and greatly admired the professional performance, commented wryly that a few more such speeches were exactly what McGovern now needs. He had in mind the toughness of Mr. Reagan’s criticism. What Reagan said, in effect, was that McGovern is an addlepated incompetent who emits little moonbeams that cause some of the children and the zoo sections of the academy to howl, but there is meanwhile a world to run and what it comes down toitisan act of great impudence for George McGovern so to distract the Republic .

Now I happen to believe that Mr. Reagan is right on target. But my Mc-Governite friend may be correct. It may be correct that you cannot get away with saying about McGovern and his policies the kind of thing one is tempted to say about them because you will merely stir up resentment, and increase the sympathy for McGovern. I understand the point, but I wonder why it is that the same principle didn’t seem to apply where Goldwater was involved eight years ago. In those days it became almost routine to liken the rise of Barry Goldwater, the world’s most decent and genial man, to the rise of Adolph Hitler. The comparison was in fact made in the course of a fortnight by George Meany, Martin Luther King and Emanuel Celler. Into this civil tradition George McGovern has fallen. He too likened the rise of Goldwater to the rise of Hitler, and how he has said about Richard Nixon that his involvement in Vietnam is done for his personal political convenience, and that in fact his assault on Vietnam is the equal of the atrocities committed by Adolf Hitler.

About the Author

William F. Buckley Jr.

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

Featured Tags

Presidential Election

Miami, Aug. 22—Ronald Reagan delivered what was in effect the keynote address at the Republican Convention. It had everything. It ranked with the great performances of Walter Judd in 1960 and Clare Boothe Luce in 1948. It did cause listeners here and again to wince: and that is an interesting psychological datum. An influential supporter of George McGovern, who listened to the speech and greatly admired the professional performance, commented wryly that a few more such speeches were exactly what McGovern now needs. He had in mind the toughness of Mr. Reagan’s criticism. What Reagan said, in effect, was that McGovern is an addlepated incompetent who emits little moonbeams that cause some of the children and the zoo sections of the academy to howl, but there is meanwhile a world to run and what it comes down toitisan act of great impudence for George McGovern so to distract the Republic .

Now I happen to believe that Mr. Reagan is right on target. But my Mc-Governite friend may be correct. It may be correct that you cannot get away with saying about McGovern and his policies the kind of thing one is tempted to say about them because you will merely stir up resentment, and increase the sympathy for McGovern. I understand the point, but I wonder why it is that the same principle didn’t seem to apply where Goldwater was involved eight years ago. In those days it became almost routine to liken the rise of Barry Goldwater, the world’s most decent and genial man, to the rise of Adolph Hitler. The comparison was in fact made in the course of a fortnight by George Meany, Martin Luther King and Emanuel Celler. Into this civil tradition George McGovern has fallen. He too likened the rise of Goldwater to the rise of Hitler, and how he has said about Richard Nixon that his involvement in Vietnam is done for his personal political convenience, and that in fact his assault on Vietnam is the equal of the atrocities committed by Adolf Hitler.