Table of Contents
Also by WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY JR.
Title Page
Dedication
Preface
Prologue
BOOK ONE
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
Chapter 8
Chapter 9
BOOK TWO
Chapter 10
Chapter 11
Chapter 12
Chapter 13
Chapter 14
Chapter 15
Chapter 16
Chapter 17
Chapter 18
Chapter 19
Chapter 20
Chapter 21
BOOK THREE
Chapter 22
Chapter 23
Chapter 24
Chapter 25
Chapter 26
Chapter 27
Chapter 28
Chapter 29
Chapter 30
Chapter 31
Chapter 32
Chapter 33
Chapter 34
BOOK FOUR
Chapter 35
Chapter 36
Chapter 37
Chapter 38
Chapter 39
Chapter 40
Chapter 41
Chapter 42
Chapter 43
Chapter 44
Chapter 45
Chapter 46
Chapter 47
Chapter 48
Chapter 49
Chapter 50
Chapter 51
Chapter 52
Chapter 53
Notes
Acknowledgments
Copyright Page
Also by WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY JR.
God and Man at Yale
McCarthy and His Enemies
(with L. Brent Bozell)
Up from Liberalism
Rumbles Left and Right
The Unmaking of a Mayor
The Jeweler’s Eye
The Governor Listeth
Cruising Speed
Inveighing We Will Go
Four Reforms
United Nations Journal:
A Delegate’s Odyssey
Execution Eve
Saving the Queen
Airborne
Stained Glass
A Hymnal:
The Controversial Arts
Who’s on First
Marco Polo, If You Can
Atlantic High: A Celebration
Overdrive: A Personal Documentary
The Story of Henri Tod
See You Later, Alligator
Right Reason
The Temptation of
Wilfred Malachey
High Jinx
Mongoose, R.I.P.
Racing Through Paradise
On the Firing Line: The Public Life
of Our Public Figures
Gratitude: Reflections on
What We Owe to Our Country
Tucker’s Last Stand
In Search of Anti-Semitism
WindFall
Happy Days Were Here Again:
Reflections of a
Libertarian Journalist
A Very Private Plot
Brothers No More
The Blackford Oakes Reader
The Right Word
Nearer, My God
The Redhunter
Spytime: The Undoing of
James Jesus Angleton
Elvis in the Morning
Nuremberg: The Reckoning
For Javier
Que quedes, como siempre, en las manos de Dios
Preface
THIS IS THE STORY OF A YOUNG MAN and a young woman whose paths first crossed in 1960 at the founding conference of the Young Americans for Freedom in Sharon, Connecticut. He had one idea how to reshape national policy, she another. The story is of their adventures, touching on the development of the conservative movement, post-Eisenhower, pre-Reagan.
This book is a novel in which public figures are intimately portrayed. Liberties are taken in chronology, and of course, as is to be expected in novels, thoughts and sentences are given to individuals which, however true they are to character, were not actually recorded.
But there is no misrepresentation in this novel, certainly none intended, and to the best of my knowledge, none crept in. These were the thoughts and declarations, the acts and critical sexual activities, of the protagonists, making up their private lives as well as their public lives. Not one word is attributed to any public declaration by Robert Welch or other representatives of the John Birch Society that wasn’t actually spoken or written by them. This is so also of Ayn Rand, respecting her thought and writing.
The fiction is imaginative joiner work, the knitting together of a story in which many people on the political scene from 1956 to 1966 were involved, from all of which conversation the author heard what he took to be the tuning fork of modern political conservatism.
In an appendix, the sources used in the text are cited.
—WFB, September 2002
Prologue
I HAVE NEGLECTED MY JOURNAL for several weeks. Not so long ago, Lucy would have reproached me, with her charming indirection (“Theo, have you done your journal today? Well, get to it.”). It was for many years a daily event, now more like a weekly event. The lapse this time is more than a month. Theo. Be honest with yourself! You are deceiving nobody. OK. My last entry was written the week of the Republican convention in San Francisco that nominated Dwight Eisenhower to serve another term, back in August. And now we are practically at election day. Ike is bound to be reelected.
Which suits me fine. Though not . . . well. I occasionally remind my dwindling body of students that idiomatic changes govern the meaning of language. What is said to suit me “fine” is, as often as not, less than fine. It is a compromise. “Can you come in at ten o’clock tomorrow?” Miss Ludwig asked me an hour ago. I replied that that suited me fine. It doesn’t, really, suit me fine, no more than the reelection of President Eisenhower suits me fine. I have no reasonable alternative to going to the dentist tomorrow at ten, given my toothache; I have no reasonable alternative to voting for Eisenhower on Tuesday, the alternative—a vote for Adlai Stevenson—being intolerable.
Apropos of which, Lucy would have been pleased with my deportment at the faculty meeting this morning. Yes, I said to Dean Mills in September, I would agree to continue to attend the monthly meetings of the history faculty, even though I am formally retired, reduced to teaching one seminar. Why did I say that? Because I took subversive pleasure in denying Jonathan Mills such satisfaction as he would take from my absence from faculty meetings. I don’t ever say much at them anymore—well, only every so often. Mostly anemic contributions to administrative questions. I did defend the Bradford history text for freshmen when it was proposed to replace that text next year with the work of that imbecile Stannard. But those who knew me in my fiery days would not have thought they were now listening to the voice of Theocritus Romney, waging battle with the faculty à outrance. They’d have thought I had lost either my voice or my spirit. Or, since Lucy is not listening in, my balls.
They’d have been right on one point. At age sixty-six my voice is lusty, but my disposition to raise it, slight. There isn’t much spirit left, not even on the issue of the history text. Should Princeton continue using an introductory text which pays some deferential notice to high moments in American political history? Or replace it with the fashionable book by Professor Stannard (baptized, or rather, not baptized, as Stanoivski), who informs the freshman reader that the Revolutionary War was an act of economic opportunism, the Civil War a continui
ng expression of that economic aggrandizement by a wealthy and covetous northeastern alliance (you see, southern slaves were free labor, and the Yankees didn’t want to compete with free labor)? Yes, and Stannard informs the student reader that the lateness of the constitutional amendment permitting income taxation betrayed the “immaturity” of the American nation (the mature nations, while this was going on, were working up to a world war that killed fifteen million people, but that’s okay, they paid for it with income taxes).
But I will not work myself up on the subject here, and certainly didn’t do so at the faculty meeting this morning. I just smiled a little. My St. Sebastian smile, Lucy called it. St. Sebastian, arms tied behind his back, looking at the archers taking aim. Mandy calls me on it, whenever I fall into that mood, which is every time she tells me she can’t see me next week, for some reason or other, as though her son weren’t old enough to look after himself; all I ask for is one night a week. I am contributing much more than one-seventh of the cost of her Gramercy Park apartment.
It was less easy to keep quiet when the dean asked for an informal, off-the-record show of hands: Eisenhower for a second term? Or Adlai Stevenson for president? I call just raising my hand for Eisenhower at the meeting the same thing as keeping quiet, because that is all that I did, just raise my hand when his name was given. There were twenty-one of us at the faculty meeting. Twenty recorded a vote for Adlai.
I don’t blame them, in a way. In my book on the development of the West, I stressed the acuteness of the challenge to the American pioneer. It was that edge that fired their spirit, the raw cold, the hot sun, the daunting scarcity of meat and grain, the lurking Indian warrior, the unattended mother when the baby came, the need to save pennies to build schools and churches. That spirit is emaciated, and the Republican Party, which should be preserving it—should be carrying it forward—is lost in ambiguity. The radio reports this very day that in Hungary there is a credible popular movement to throw off the Soviet tyrant. The fight for liberty is coming to a head there. But its proponents will depend, finally, on . . . the United States. On President Eisenhower. On the leader of the Republican Party. What will we do? What pride does the party of Dwight Eisenhower—which repudiated Robert Taft, its organic leader, at the convention in 1952—generate? Not enough to get more than a single vote of the Princeton history faculty.
This is the Eisenhower who thinks that we cope best with the Communist leadership by international exchanges. The only time I did raise my voice at a faculty meeting was when President Eisenhower confessed at a press conference that when Marshal Zhukov told him that the Communist system appealed to the idealistic, Eisenhower said that—I’ll never forget his words—“I had a very tough time trying to defend our position.” Soviet idealism! The Russians are building missiles and exploding nuclear bombs. Our own secretary of defense admits that the Soviets’ bomber capacity will exceed our own.
Ike’s answer to all that?
More state welfare, more deficits, more guarantees to the farmers and to labor union leaders—never mind the enslaved people of Eastern Europe.
I may have one more book left in me. A short book. Maybe a long essay. My good Mormons in Salt Lake would be glad to publish it. It would address the conservative movement in America. Mostly Republicans, but a lot of Democrats, and I’d speak out about the listlessness of America, the same continental entity that subdued nature, the Indians, the French, the British, the Spanish, and the Nazis but can’t come up with a foreign policy that smashes its fist down on Communist presumptions. On Moscow’s challenges to our freedom and independence.
But we would need to define what that freedom is. What are the roots of it, and how can we nourish them while giving in to statist depredations, year after year?
Maybe it’s a good thing that I am doing my journal more irregularly. Maybe I’ll put it in a capsule to be read, oh, fifty years from now, 2006. To document that what we used to think of as America the land of the brave was, well, with us yet. Not just with me. But not much more than me in the company of scholars at Princeton University, which nurtured James Madison. What would he have done today for the equivalent—in Hungary—of the generation that gave us our independence? That was a haunting sentence Whittaker Chambers wrote to Buckley. I thanked him for sending me a copy. That’s what I call despair. Chambers wrote him, “It is idle to talk about preventing the wreck of Western civilization. It is already a wreck from within. That is why we can hope to do little more now than snatch a fingernail of a saint from the rack or a handful of ashes from the faggots, and bury them secretly in a flowerpot against the day, ages hence, when a few men begin again to dare to believe that there was once something else, that something else is thinkable, and need some evidence of what it was, and the fortifying knowledge that there were those who, at the great nightfall, took loving thought to preserve the tokens of hope and truth.”
I’ll get back to my painting. I told the story of the Rocky Mountains with some success in my book, they tell me. I wish I could do them justice with my paintbrush.
BOOK ONE
1
THE MISSIONARY TRAINING PERIOD began right there in Salt Lake City, immediately after Woodroe Raynor graduated from high school, nearing his nineteenth birthday in 1956. The training hadn’t been extensive. The Mormon missionary outpost in Vienna was in a hurry, eager for stateside help. The missionaries in the field would superintend further training in the country in which Woodroe would be serving, doing his duty by his church.
The Vienna Mormon station, in July 1956, had a cadre of three Americans and four Austrians, rapidly put together after the May 15, 1955, State Treaty. This covenant with Moscow formally detached Austria from the military competitiveness of the Cold War. The new treaty had been denounced by a few conservatives in the U.S. Senate, notably William Jenner of Indiana. In his dissenting speech, Jenner made the point that to commit the Austrian state to neutrality forfeited the liberationist potential it might someday have exerted on Czechoslovakia to the north and Hungary to the east. Under the terms of the treaty, Austria could make no military covenants with East or West.
In the days before the treaty was concluded, there had been heated pro-Communist coverage in what professionals in the United States Information Agency handily called the “satellite press.” “When Moscow decrees the correct line,” Woodroe had been instructed in Salt Lake, “newspapers and radios in the satellite states serve dutifully as echo chambers.” The Communist line, in the winter of 1955, had declaimed that Austria could not safely be permitted at any time in the foreseeable future to be free of military supervision by Moscow—given the enthusiasm the Austrian people had shown for Hitler when, in March of 1938, promulgating the Anschluss, he had declared that Germany and Austria were now a single state. In suddenly endorsing the hands-free treaty, Soviet leadership, under Stalin’s successor, Nikita Khrushchev, was making a show of the regime’s new, cooperative disposition. The satellite press got into line, celebrating the treaty as one more step toward a people’s peace.
So it was that on May 15, 1955, in the great Austrian Gallery of the Belvedere Palace in Vienna, the treaty was signed. Mormon authorities in Salt Lake lost no time in making claim to the old house on Radetsky Street. Requisitioned by the Nazis in 1939, the Mormon property had served as a training barracks for the Austrian Gestapo. At war’s end it was abandoned, sitting empty for ten years. Notwithstanding, the Communist occupying force denied the Mormons permission to reoccupy it for missionary activity—never mind that the Mormon enterprise abroad was resolutely nonpolitical. It was only after the 1955 treaty that Austria resumed sole registry, and quickly turned the property back to its prewar owners.
Woodroe was given quarters in the dormitory section of the building. He was lodged under the V-shaped roof and could enter his room only by stooping. During the day, he pursued his German study and sat in, to learn about teaching techniques, at the ongoing English-language classes hungrily subscribed to by young Austrians. On co
mpletion of his training in September he was informed that he would be doing fieldwork as an assistant at the Mormon missionary post in Andau, forty-five miles to the southeast, on the Hungarian border.
In pastoral Andau, Woodroe lived in the same house as his superior, thirty-five-year-old Andrew Goodhart, and Goodhart’s Hungarian wife, twenty-five-year-old Hildred. Woodroe taught English, helped to provision and maintain the city library’s English-language section, and did what he could as a carpenter and painter on the grand project of converting an adjacent barn into a schoolhouse.
There was always work to do around the house and in the garden, especially now that winter was coming. He wrote to his widowed mother, “It’s this simple, Mom. I do anything that Andrew or Hildred ask me to do. He’s nice, but you know, he doesn’t smile much. We listen to the radio all the time, in German and in English, and you can’t tell, looking at him, what he’s thinking. In case you’re curious, he graduated from Lively High in 1939—seventeen years ahead of me—and did a crash academic program at Salt Lake U. before the war, majoring in German and then doing intelligence work and meeting Hildred. With Hildy, who is ten years younger, he’s very formal. I already told you, she’s Hungarian. Her father was a railroad engineer. Actually, what he really was, was a Communist intelligence agent—I think. I’m not sure what the word stands for that she used about her father’s past, and Andrew wouldn’t like to be interrogated about ties of his wife’s father to Communism, never mind that we’re talking about when Hildred was only fifteen years old.
“We speak together in English because Andrew wants her to practice her English. Her German is, well, fluent: she was taught the German language during the Nazi occupation in Budapest. That’s how come she met Andrew—doing translating when our people set up in Budapest, thinking to include Hungary in on the Marshall Plan. Mom, it’s very beautiful in the Burgenland countryside. Not much like our part of the world.
“Send me your pumpkin pie recipe, will you? And, Mom, while you’re at it, send me some pumpkins. Got to go. Much love, Woody.”
Getting It Right Page 1
