321 CHRONICLESnSaint Williamnby John C. ChalbergnWilliam F. Buckley, Jr.: PatronnSaint of the Conservatives by JohnnB. Judis, New York: Simon &nSchuster.nSaint William? A canonization has occurrednwithout prior beatification. A stillnliving and breathing William F.nBuckley Jr. has been elevated to sainthood.nAnd by whom? Not by the popenand not by Buckley’s own flock, but byna man of the left. And why? Notnbecause of Buckley’s continuing conservatism,nbut because he is no longernthe same sort of conservative he wasnwhen he first began to make himselfnand his ideas known.nThere is, you see, according to biographernJudis, more than one William F.nBuckley. More specifically, a youngn”mahster” Buckley has “grown” duringnhis nearly 40 years in the public eye. Ornat least John Judis would have us believenas much. That Buckley youngster hasnstretched a bit, if not exactly filled out,nin the years since he was BuckleynSenior’s good boy, Yale’s bad boy, E.nHoward Hunt’s fair-haired boy, andnJack Paar’s whipping boy. Does all thisnmean that William F. Buckley Jr. hasnceased to be a conservative? No, but itndoes mean that he has become the sortnof conservative Judis is able to tolerate,neven admire.nJudis dwells at some length on then”reactionary” young Buckley, from thencradle through Yale. But the heart of hisnstory is the post-CIA, post-God andnMan at Yale Buckley who undertooknthe compromising and forbiddingnprocess of stitching together a conservativencoalition from the “remnant”nthat was American conservatism in then1950’s. It was Albert J. Nock who firstnhad the idea. It was Nock’s great friendnand benefactor, the senior WillnBuckley, who considered himself to bena charter member of that coalition.nAnd it would be William F. Buckley Jr.nwho would build upon that remnantnwithin and without National Review.nAs he has gotten older Buckley hasnlearned that one can compromise tonget a political victory without necessarilynsacrificing one’s basic principles orndestroying one’s peace of mind—ornsurrendering the twin beliefs of anyngood conservative. Growth or nongrowth, Bill Buckley has always beennconvinced that a perfect world is neithernpossible nor desirable, and a worldnfully politicized in the pursuit of perfectionnwould be infinitely worse. Judisnhas detected flashes of doubt and evenndespair in both the private and publicnBuckley, but the broad portrait whichnemerges is one of a generally satisfiednman at large in an all too satisfiedncountry.nJudis would have us believe thatnsome great transformation has takennplace in the life of Bill Buckley. Butnhas it? And if so, how did it happen?nHow did an always combative outsiderntransform himself into an often contentedninsider? How did a toothy aristocratnbecome the darling of the massnmedia? And how did an irresponsiblenradical make himself into a “responsiblenconservative”? Just who, if anyone,ndragged William F. Buckley Jr. kickingnand screaming, or, better, camplingnand inveighing, into the great graynworld of the late 20th century? Judisnpoints to Buckley himself, who hasnachieved his current level of respectabilitynand understanding not by examiningnhis life (Judis will gladly donthat for him), but simply by living it.nOf course, he has had his share ofnteachers.nIt was Whittaker Chambers whontaught Buckley the necessity of then”Beaconsfield position.” So named fornBenjamin Disraeli, Lord Beaconsfield,nit was based upon the conservativenacceptance of the “needs and hopes ofnthe masses” — i.e., the welfare state. Atnfirst Buckley rejected Chambers’ contention,nas did Willi Schlamm, whonwas also present at the creation ofnNational Review. It was Schlamm, thenformer communist, who joined withnBuckley to make National Review intona bastion of anticommunism and freenenterprise individualism. And it wasnSchlamm who objected strenuously tonthe notion that conservatives either hadnto face extinction or accommodatenthemselves to the “essentially socialist”ndesires of Chambers’ masses. Buckley,nhowever, disagreed, and so began thendeparture of Schlamm and other likemindednconservatives from the masthead.nDuring his long tenure at NationalnReview, James Burnham performed ansimilar service for his adopted move­nnnment and precocious pupil. If Chambersntaught the grudging acceptancenof the welfare state, then Burnhamnadvised against grudge matches withnthe Soviet state. From the failedn1956 Hungarian uprising on, JamesnBurnham, architect of liberation, becamenJames Burnham, practitioner ofncontainment. Again Buckley resistednfollowing his mentor, but eventually hencame down on the side of Burnhamitenaccommodation. In short, intellectualnbatties within National Review foreshadowednpolitical baffles within thenReagan administration. And as thosenearlier battles were being waged,nBuckley moved closer, ever closer, to anmore pragmatic version of conservatism.nAnd batties there were. Battles overnwhether or not to canonize SenatornMcCarthy, endorse President Eisenhower,nreject the John Birch Society,ncriticize Southern segregationists, endorsencandidate Nixon, trumpet thencandidacy of Goldwater, repudiate thenOld Right, embrace the New Right,nendorse candidate Nixon again, criticizenPresident Nixon again and again,npraise Henry Kissinger, support JohnnAshbrook, dump President Ford, opposenthe Panama Canal treaties, andnjump on the bandwagon of the leadingnRepublican opponent of those treaties.nFor Judis, the most significant upwardnstep for Buckley was his decisionnto oppose the John Birch Society. Withnthis move Buckley established himselfnas a member in good standing of then”responsible right.” No longer a radicalnintent upon demolishing the statusnquo, he was now a conservative with allnof the rights and obligations thereof.nNo longer would his rallying cry ben”no enemies to the right.” And nonlonger could he be denied acclaim,neven celebrityhood. After all, no “Ike isna commie” shouter, no matter hownclever he might be, could ever havenfound his way onto the ]ack Paar Show.nAccording to Judis, Buckley wasn”inexorably drawn” to a career as an”popular journalist and political personality.”nNever would he write a bignbook or win public office. His singleneffort to compose such a tract never gotnmuch beyond a titie: Revolt from thenMasses. And his lone foray into thenelectoral jungles ended with his expectednloss to John Lindsay in a race fornmayor of New York.n