William F. Buckley, Jr. & Michael Harrington, circa 1966

[Steeltime]

Margaret Hoover showed a very brief clip of Buckley's very first "Firing Line," in April, 1966 and featuring socialist and leading advocate for government-spending on "anti-poverty" programs to help the poor, Michael Harrington.

I watched the entire video. Three comments. First, the idea that Margaret Hoover and Alexandria Ocasio-Hyphen are remotely in the same intellectual sphere as Buckley and Harrington is ludicrous. It is akin to comparing the Algonquin Round Table to fart jokes in "Dumb and Dumber."

Second, watch the end of the video, during the question-and-answer session, beginning at 36:10. Wow. Buckley and Harrington debate the viability of the new "war on poverty" programs, run by the Federal government, and one audience member asks if the assistance benefits will create a class dependent on government handouts. Buckley and Harrington disagree on the likelihood of that outcome. Guess what? Buckley was right, Harrington palpably and demonstrably wrong.



Third, watching this debate reminded me of the value of genuine discussion and debate based on ideas, not personality. I am going to make an effort to implement Buckley's level of discussion - vigorous, informed, and civil.

 

[CharlesDavenport]

Buckley was right. It happened. There is no need for debate. That is the problem. These idiot liberals keep resurrecting Marxism as if it hasn't been proven to be an evil force.

 

[Steeltime]

Buckley was right. It happened. There is no need for debate. That is the problem. These idiot liberals keep resurrecting Marxism as if it hasn't been proven to be an evil force.

The debates were are having today about massive government spending on health care, school loans, food stamps, welfare, and on and on were debated in this program and the very same positions we see today were advanced back then. Buckley said that poverty was much deeper than simply a financial plight, and until we fix the psychological and moral underpinnings that play a role in poverty, the problem will remain. He further said that spending money to fix the problem will reward poor decisions and increase the number of people dependent on the state.

Harrington argued that giving citizens a minimum subsistence, to insure their ability to feed and house themselves, would promote better health and those citizens would use the assistance to pull themselves out of poverty. He further said that citizens would not become dependent on government assistance, as the amount of support would be the minimum level to avoid starvation and would not incentivize such dependence. But he then counters his own argument by saying the Federal government should spend much MORE on the welfare state, and as that happened, dependence on government programs increased. Finally, Harrington argued that only the Federal government could run such a relief program, as some local governments were inhospitable to the idea of Federal relief programs,

Buckley was right on every count, Harrington was wrong. Buckley stated the matter this way: "History shows that when you subsidize something, you get more of it. So when you subsidize the poor, you get more of them."

Yes, you do. Why? Because it makes little sense for someone right on the fringe of assistance-level income to work 40 hours per week, have the government withhold some of his earnings, and to then see less weekly income than those on assistance. What do rational people in that circumstance do? Go on assistance. It's exactly what happened.

 

[steel dino]

Margaret Hoover showed a very brief clip of Buckley's very first "Firing Line," in April, 1966 and featuring socialist and leading advocate for government-spending on "anti-poverty" programs to help the poor, Michael Harrington.

I watched the entire video. Three comments. First, the idea that Margaret Hoover and Alexandria Ocasio-Hyphen are remotely in the same intellectual sphere as Buckley and Harrington is ludicrous. It is akin to comparing the Algonquin Round Table to fart jokes in "Dumb and Dumber."

Second, watch the end of the video, during the question-and-answer session, beginning at 36:10. Wow. Buckley and Harrington debate the viability of the new "war on poverty" programs, run by the Federal government, and one audience member asks if the assistance benefits will create a class dependent on government handouts. Buckley and Harrington disagree on the likelihood of that outcome. Guess what? Buckley was right, Harrington palpably and demonstrably wrong.



Third, watching this debate reminded me of the value of genuine discussion and debate based on ideas, not personality. I am going to make an effort to implement Buckley's level of discussion - vigorous, informed, and civil.

Nice find man...

Totally agree with your statement on the "value of genuine discussion and debate based on ideas......."

IMO----that's whats desperately missing in today's American society...

 

[Smash]

Thank you for the video Steeltime. I'm just old enough to remember Firing Line but was too young to be interested. Dad used to watch as I remember. And you're right, Miss America could not hold a candle to Mr. Harrington, though he would be a "polite" precursor to today's socialists.

I don't know what a "machine democrat" is as opposed to a liberal democrat that Mr. Harrington mentioned in the q & a. Maybe a product of say Tammany Hall of the early 20th century?

Classic Buckley at 31:05.

 

[Steeltime]

Thank you for the video Steeltime. I'm just old enough to remember Firing Line but was too young to be interested.

No problem. I started watching Firing Line in 1981, my second year of college. A civics instructor had us read six political journals or magazines, three on the left and three on the right. We then needed to summarize the most interesting article in each of the six magazines or journals.

I read one journal that was published monthly by the Black Panther Party. One of the articles focused on police brutality in the inner-city, an issue that remains a significant topic even through today. It was also the first time I read the National Review. I read a very good article about using monetary policy to control inflation. I became a fan of the National Review, and it's extremely intelligent and well-founded analyses of the United States economy.

I became a fan of William F Buckley, Jr., and started watching Firing Line nearly every week. Those who remember Firing Line will recall that he always had political opponents on the show. That is why I so dislike the modern format of having ideological twins stroking each other's peckers for an hour. Or the near-twin tactic of having 4 liberals on the panel, and one conservative who gets shouted down. Firing Line in fact had the very liberal Michael Kinsley act as moderator for many of the shows I viewed.

Buckley worked very briefly for the CIA, and long hated communism and the devastation it imposed on those unfortunate enough to fall under its boot. Buckley remained one of my favorite political commentators until his retirement in 1990. I had the pleasure of attending a speech he gave in 1981, shortly after Reagan's inauguration. He implored the United States to remain committed to defending Western Europe and opposing Soviet expansionism, including by putting missiles in Germany. He ended the speech by saying (paraphrasing as it has been nearly 40 years), "Do not let our children wonder why we failed to oppose this enemy. Instead, let them wonder at our courage for doing so."

 

[Troglodyte]

Too bad no video exists of them debating corporate welfare because the very idea of it was preposterous.

 

[Steeltime]

Too bad no video exists of them debating corporate welfare because the very idea of it was preposterous.

As usual, you are wrong:

 

[Smash]

Find myself watching Firing Line much and again, thanks. So much to be learned from these historical conversations that really were polite in nature, and had an indelible effect on the politics of the day, and haven't really changed to this day. Both sides respectful. We need that today.

He had a tete a tete with Maggie Thatcher long before she became PM. She seemed in awe of Buckley at the outset of this interview ( he must have been quite something) and was quite reserved, but became comfortable as the conversation went on. She'd later carry her view of local politics to a national stage and changed the Brit direction for a time. Sadly just for a time. I consider the Brit experience an advanced look at future America. And what is happening in Britain is not what we need as the world's lone super power.

But few stem the tide of socialism/globalism such as her and Reagan, and now Trump. History does not give us many like them. I consider myself fortunate to have lived through their time.



I'm saving his pre-presidency Reagan interview to learn more of him.