What Would William F. Buckley Jr. Have Done? A Nuanced Look at a Complex Conservative

William F. Buckley Jr. was a central, often contradictory figure in 20th-century American conservatism. Founder of National Review and an architect of a broad conservative coalition, Buckley united many strands of the right while refusing to be pinned down by a single, systematic ideology. His career mixed principled defenses of civil liberties with pragmatic compromises—sometimes uncomfortable ones—made in the name of fighting what he saw as greater threats.

A movement builder more than an ideologue

Buckley welcomed a range of conservative voices at National Review and helped create space for conservatives to articulate different priorities. As Charles Kesler observed, Buckley "preferred to reason prudentially, deliberatively, one case at a time." That flexibility made him an effective organizer: he brought isolated conservative thinkers into a shared conversation without enforcing doctrinal uniformity.

Foreign policy and anti-communism

Raised in an isolationist milieu (he admired Charles Lindbergh and was briefly associated with the America First movement), Buckley changed course after World War II. He served on the home front during the war, spent time working for U.S. intelligence, and became a resolute Cold Warrior. The existential threat he perceived in Soviet communism led him to endorse policies that conflicted with small-government principles—supporting conscription and expansive wartime powers when he believed they were necessary to defeat totalitarian rivals.

At times Buckley participated in controversial efforts to shape public opinion about Vietnam and national security, including publishing material that critics have characterized as misleading or fabricated in debates over the Pentagon Papers. He later supported the initial case for the 2003 invasion of Iraq but ultimately called the war a mistake and regretted how defenders of the administration dismissed dissenting conservatives as insufficiently loyal.

Trade, the presidency, and constitutional concerns

Buckley consistently criticized protectionism. He argued that tariffs harm consumers, weaken competitiveness, and stifle economic development abroad: "Tariffs are a form of economic warfare," he wrote, blending prudential and moral objections. He also warned against an "imperial presidency," insisting that a strong executive must still be subject to congressional checks: "A strong executive can be a necessary, galvanizing force, but the executive's authority cannot be supreme, let alone unchallenged."

Race, civil liberties, and intellectual freedom

On race, Buckley’s record evolved significantly. An unsigned 1957 editorial in National Review, "Why the South Must Prevail," advanced arguments now widely regarded as indefensible. Buckley later repudiated many of those positions: by the late 1960s he publicly criticized segregationist figures and acknowledged the need for racial progress. He visited predominantly Black neighborhoods, spoke against denial of voting rights, and reflected that early commentary had fallen short of a more humane stance.

Buckley's views on free speech and academic freedom were complicated. His 1951 book God and Man at Yale attacked what he saw as ideological conformity in elite universities and argued that those who paid for education—parents and alumni—had a stake in the ideas taught. At other times he defended robust dissent. This uneven record reflects his case-by-case pragmatism more than a single philosophical commitment.

"What makes the United States special... is that our Bill of Rights 'is essentially a list of prohibitions, but it is a list of things that the government cannot do to the people.' What a huge distinction—a majestic distinction."

Legacy and judgment

Buckley’s career is striking for its combination of intellectual breadth, rhetorical skill, and political flexibility. He could defend controversial allies when he believed they were fighting a perceived leftist menace, yet he also championed constitutional liberties and later expressed regret about some earlier positions. His willingness to accommodate different conservative perspectives helped build a durable movement, even as it left his own principles sometimes appearing inconsistent.

In the end, asking definitively what Buckley would have done about any single contemporary figure or movement is difficult. He was neither a doctrinaire libertarian nor a rigid partisan; he was a pragmatist, a polemicist, and a movement builder whose choices were shaped by historical context, personal judgment, and an overriding opposition to communism. That mixture made him influential—and often contested—across decades of American political life.