On the Right

New York, Sept. 6—Oh sure, Nelson Rockefeller’s principal purpose in his trip to the South, where he discovered that his affection for George Wallace was like that for a fraternity brother, was politics. So what else is new? Edward Kennedy began the pilgrimage to the shrine at Montgomery two years ago, and it was hardly to be expected that politicians to the right of Senator Kennedy—which means, mercifully, about 95 per cent of all elected officials— should cavil at the hypocrisy of Nelson Rockefeller, whose opsimathy on a number of matters is not to be deplored, or condescended to, but welcomed.

It is difficult to understand why the critics automatically assume that a politician who, like Nelson Rockefeller, made his reputation substantially by his identification with the excesses of the welfare state, should not now retreat from his former position. After all, Richard Nixon was the anti-Communist fire-eater. He saw, or thought he saw, that conditions had substantially changed and, accordingly, initiated moves toward a detente with the same Mainland Chinese whose sequestration had been an article of faith for him for decades.

About the Author

William F. Buckley Jr.

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

Featured Tags

New York, Sept. 6—Oh sure, Nelson Rockefeller’s principal purpose in his trip to the South, where he discovered that his affection for George Wallace was like that for a fraternity brother, was politics. So what else is new? Edward Kennedy began the pilgrimage to the shrine at Montgomery two years ago, and it was hardly to be expected that politicians to the right of Senator Kennedy—which means, mercifully, about 95 per cent of all elected officials— should cavil at the hypocrisy of Nelson Rockefeller, whose opsimathy on a number of matters is not to be deplored, or condescended to, but welcomed.

It is difficult to understand why the critics automatically assume that a politician who, like Nelson Rockefeller, made his reputation substantially by his identification with the excesses of the welfare state, should not now retreat from his former position. After all, Richard Nixon was the anti-Communist fire-eater. He saw, or thought he saw, that conditions had substantially changed and, accordingly, initiated moves toward a detente with the same Mainland Chinese whose sequestration had been an article of faith for him for decades.