Tonight I attended a screening of the 1968 debates between William F. Buckley and Gore Vidal.
It was remarkable in many respects, not the least of which being how many people packed the Brooks Museum of Art to watch a 40-year-old series of political debates.
The eight recordings were found in various stages of decrepitude, in color except for the “most famous” of them — the seventh debate (in which they exchange virulent slurs) was black and white.
I assumed the interest had something to do with the desire of many to see Buckley, the late father of the modern conservative ideological movement, get his comeuppance.
And indeed Buckley did seem to fall behind for the first couple debates, not least because of the distorting, fun-house-mirror effect the camera had on his head in the first episode. His characteristically odd speaking style, too, was jarring at first, especially matched against the more direct, pugilistic style of Vidal. Additionally, Buckley seemed to be playing the role of a detached observer at the start, while Vidal presented himself as an aggressive pundit; this is partially explained by the forum, given that the first debates were held at the Republican convention, where Buckley was understood to be playing defense.
Vidal was especially effective in one debate when he relentlessly tried to nail down Buckley’s position on the Vietnam war and ultimately labeled him the nation’s leading “hawk.” Throughout the series, Buckley had driven home a devastating criticism of President Johnson’s foreign policy, particularly the fecklessness with which he prosecuted the war in Vietnam. But ultimately Buckley failed to clearly articulate the alternative or emerge from behind the ambiguity of the GOP’s official position on the subject. Vidal punished him for alternating between what at times seemed like disengagement with the enemy, and at others complete annihilation of North Vietnam (and/or other communist threats).
Vidal may have been lulled into a false sense of security, though, as the left-leaning audience’s increasingly sparse laughter and applause evidenced. Buckley took control in the middle debates, schooling Vidal on issues ranging from the civil rights record of Nixon and Reagan to Supreme Court opinions on the Constitutional freedom of assembly. He artfully jabbed Vidal with clever quips and turns of phrase and provided essential context that exposed the false assumptions behind his statements. Buckley also brilliantly deconstructed the moderator’s questions on the fly, in one instance noting the logical absurdity of a question about whether the GOP should take advantage of “backlash.”
The most punishing blow, however, wasn’t Buckley’s “you’ll stay plastered” line, but rather a moment of pure theater when he handed Vidal a letter from Bobby Kennedy about sending “not blood but Gore” to the Vietcong. From that point on, Vidal never completely regained his footing.
In the eighth and final debate, Buckley delivered a knockout punch, in response to a question doubting Nixon’s ability to enact wide-ranging reforms from the office of the President. In a surprising pivot, Buckley agreed with the question’s intrinsic assumption, and used it as a jumping-off point to explain the core difference between the governing philosophies of conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats. What followed was one of the most eloquent, succinct and powerful explanations for why conservatives champion federalism and capitalism, and how both serve to protect the civil society.
When the question moved to Vidal, we found him unable to offer a coherent rebuttal; instead, he came close to agreeing with many of Buckley’s assertions and solemnly admitted the federal government’s abundant weaknesses. I would love to have a transcript of Vidal’s complete answer.
But perhaps the most impressive thing was the performance of moderator Howard K. Smith, who managed to mix it up with the two and stay impartial at the same time. Smith was humorous, kept the debate flowing, asked brief questions and then got out of the way and allowed for a dynamic dialogue between the two. In a time when the David Gregorys, Chuck Todds and Gwen Ifills dominate the screen, and when the most insightful political forum is held by a preacher at a mega-church, Smith’s example shines like a city on a hill.