All is not well in this country today. In a dubious effort to improve everybody's condition, William F. Buckley, Jr. came to Webster Hall on Monday night to enlighten Dartmouth as to his "reflections on current disorders."
His presentation was both lucid and comprehensive, and except for a few predictable forays into condescending elitism, Buckley gave the kind of address to be expected of a respected conservative leader.
In the course of his philosophical musings he mentioned such phenomena as the indulgent hedonism of the Sixties and the reaffirmation of the democratic oath or "ethos of the commonweal."
These struck me as intriguing, considering both the applause from Buckley's staunch supporters in the first few rows and the current political climate on this campus.
I'm going to reflect on some "current disorders" myself, or at least some peculiarities concerning the way political debate develops around here.
What is the "commonweal," and furthermore what does the conservative element on campus contribute to it? After all, if Mr. Buckley sees some significance in it, it must be worth contributing to.
Most communities, including this one, benefit from security, stability and the greatest possible satisfaction of its members, and contributing to these conditions can be interpreted as a contribution to the commonweal.
Criticism becomes a positive, constructive influence intended to settle differences. This is a basic nonpartisan contention.
Let's peruse this week's Dartmouth Review. We see "Confessions of a Guilty White Dog." We see "How's your Aspen?" We see "Liberals: Unintelligent Intellectuals."
We invariably see phobia, belligerence and disgust. Where's the contribution to the commonweal Mr. Buckley noted? To whom accrues the benefit of negative commentary?
Buckley spoke of the hedonism of the Sixties. We have on this campus a manifestation of the hedonism of the Nineties.
I would suppose that The Review derives at least some pleasure from its high profile or prevalent reputation. Occupying the position of the perpetual arch-rival to "loony-liberalism" may be a poor way to win affection, but it is an excellent means of attracting attention.
Near the end of his presentation, somebody asked Buckley why his philosophy seemed to lack compassion.
He answered the question by drawing a distinction between voluntary charity, which he supports, and compulsory charity, which he believes is maintained through imprudent taxation.
His point, however, was clear in that he believes charity becomes more appropriate when the individual gets to decide when and how much.
The drive to preserve or re-establish dear old tradition is obviously not aided by a blatant lack of compassion to the offended, but approaching the goal in this way is a great gambit for getting noticed.
Likewise, there is no charity in a relentless attack against minorities on the Dartmouth campus, but at least we all know who the attackers are.
The radical conservative element better fall back in line with Mr. Buckley, or else it might have to find a new messiah.
There is no mercy, nor any potential positive result, when our interactions are dominated by malevolence for its own sake.
