The 1960's - Vidal-Buckley debates, a sign of times to come

The 1960's - Vidal-Buckley debates, a sign of times to come

(To all my readers : This is a long essay, and I primarily meant to write it for my own understanding and use. It took about two hours to write this piece, and when I finished, I felt there may be few readers who would be interested in what I have to say. Hence the posting. The Vidal-Buckley debate is now captured in a wonderful documentary titled "Best of enemies", which incidentally is available on Netflix. For those us, who have time, interest and desire, it is definitely worth a watch. America doesn't produce people like Vidal or Buckley anymore. They were quintessential Americans: Free, opinionated, liberal and deeply wanted an America free of dogmatic encrustations. With Presidential elections round the corner, the Vidal-Buckley debates still resonates with intellectual vigor and enthusiasm for a better future, which sadly seem missing or lacking in what we see today)

Charles Dickens begins his epic tale of the French Revolution in “Tales of two cities” with these unforgettable and deep words - “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us…”. Almost every epochal period in a nation or a civilization can be characterized in such immortal words. It could be a century, decade or even a few years, but the consequences of what is done during that time, becomes a pivotal point in the social and political fabric of its inhabitants; a swerve, a redefinition of priorities, values and aspirations that drive its men towards “progress” and well-being. It would not be wrong to say that the aftermath of such times is nothing short of a fundamental revolution in the way people think, feel and act.

To me, the United States of America has always been a fascinating subject of study as a nation, a democracy, as a crucible of liberty and freedom. And one of the reasons for this fascination perhaps stems from the fact that its birth, sustenance and growth are extremely well documented. Every aspect of its life over the last 250 odd years is richly chronicled without need for interpretations or conjectures. When most of what we know of the East, or even Europe for that matter comes from historical narratives that are more often than not interpretative, contradictory or vacillating, evolution of America is available to us for most part in its purest forms. Actual accounts, richly detailed biographies and autobiographies, admirable works of fiction and non-fiction, proliferous number of newspapers and magazines, arts that captured the spirit of its times, audio recordings, video clips, well preserved monuments and places of historical importance – all of them give an avid student the material required to understand the subtle movements of its life course along the arteries of social, political and cultural pathways.

Interestingly, there have been not many period in America’s history when things have really radically. From the time of its formation to the tumultuous and bloody civil war marked a definite phase, and then there was a period of consolidation and working out its distinctive principles of liberty, political systems, science and economic development. There was then a productive phase of strong individualism influenced by religious movements that leaned towards man direct relationship with God and a strict sense of puritanism that evolved from it; after which came its unfortunate involvement with two world wars - a time when America started assuming that mantle of moral superiority which it carries even today as guardians of Human liberty; then the biggest shock of them all came in the form of economic depression that closely followed the wars when people realized for the first time that material prosperity is but a dream that can dissolve anytime, and any value systems built on its flimsy grounds is perhaps not strong enough to sustain.

In modern times, the decade of the sixties is, in my opinion, a singular set of ten years that marks America of old from the new. What a decade it was? Who would have imagined when 1960’s dawned they would elect one of the most charismatic, young Men who ever stood for presidency (John F Kennedy) as their thirty fifth president, only to be dramatically assassinated couple of years later; who would have expected that the sixties would further bear witness to brutal killings of two other intellectual stalwarts: Martin Luther King and Robert F Kennedy. One, a champion of civil liberties, the other a level headed, intelligent Presidential candidate representing the aspiration of Modern America without the playboyish and controversial charm of his brother. Who would have thought that America’s participation in an innocuous war in Vietnam would spiral into such bloody meaningless conflict resulting in colossal waste of active Human life for a cause that really didn’t justify US military presence - the right of US as a Moral gate keeper came under severe scrutiny and reevaluation by its public. Who would have imagined that a socially stable America with “family- values” suddenly find its young men and women abandoning stability and middle class values and plunge into a mood of hippies and counter culture fueled by rebellious and anti-establishment lyrics of Bob Dylan and Beatles and many others? Who would have imagined that being “Gay” was no more a taboo, and homosexuality would be accepted as part of normal human psychological structure, much against existing conventional puritanism of Christian faith and morals? Who would have thought that one of biggest movie hits in the sixties will happen to be “The graduate” - a film that opens up fundamental questions on adult preferences and blurring of ethical lines in social behavior? Who would have imagined that Women would have ever get to enjoy the pleasures of sex without fear of pregnancy, when the FDA approved the birth control pill in late sixties? It is a discovery that radicalized feminine power in the USA. Who would have thought the Henry Millers “Tropic of cancer” would push the limits of US laws on vulgarity and pornography, and eventually be declared a work of literature by the Supreme Court - a decision that had wide repercussions on American letters? Who would have thought that America would allow itself to be inundated by spiritual practices from the east clothing themselves in fanciful names and garbs seducing disillusioned public in brand new ways? Discontent was seething from within in many ways, and the mood of its people towards the ends of this decade was that of undecidedness. The fond dreams upon which America was built began to rumble in its foundations. Change was in the air as the decade inched towards its end.

So in the midst all this turmoil, unrest and social upheaval arrived the Presidential elections in 1968. An election that was to prove not only decisive in terms of what people wanted out a Government, but also a prism that reflected the stand of republicans and democrats on where they stood on key issues in American polity ad social issues. An aging Lyndon Johnson had openly declared that he wouldn’t stand reelection. It was a fight then between Republican Richard Nixon and Democrat Hubert Humphrey. With both Kennedy’s (who symbolized resurgent America for its fellow citizens) dead or rather killed, it was a tough choice for people to make. Both aspiring candidates in this election were by no means of the same caliber of those glamorous and eloquent brothers of Kennedy family. Therefore, it needed strong media presence to bolster their respective positions and voice their views to general public. ABC (American Broadcasting Corporation) came up with a brilliant idea. Leaving the run of mill coverage of day to day elections to other TV channels, they decided to host a series of twelve debates spread over Democratic and republican conventions in Miami and Chicago, featuring two towering intellectuals of the day: Gore Vidal – democrat, a celebrated Novelist, Chronicler of American history, playwright, proclaimed Homosexual, candid in his views on American imperialism and William Buckley Jr – republican ,redoubtable TV Host, a strict conservative, editor of the National review, sympathizer of racism, an eloquent speaker quick of wit, repartee and sarcasm; more importantly – viscerally loathed Vidal and all that he stood for in American life. To bring both of them on stage was a bold move. It was no mystery that both men disliked each other, and if not for intellectual integrity, restraint and an opportunity to knock each other out intellectually, they would have never agreed to sit on the same platform together.

For the first in Election history, such an analyses was being orchestrated. It was clear that sparks would fly, and each man would not only stick to their party views but will make sure they try to establish their unequivocal intellectual supremacy over each other. Both of them were public speakers of the highest order deeply steeped in American history and values. The fact the each one hated the other’s presence was not to be a deterrent for a fair, witty and stimulating dialogue on current state of affairs. The first series of debates were aired during the Republican convention in Miami. For forty five minutes, viewers and listeners were treated to crisp debating that crisscrossed personal and public boundaries without stepping upon each one toes. The tension in the air was palpable. The question in everyone’s mind was this: When is the debate going to get personal or who is going to make the first offensive move to put down the other. The speakers, obviously masters in this art of conversation would often perilously come to verbal blows with each other, but then would back off leaving the field clear for further discussions. ABC was happy to see viewership soaring to millions with each debate. After the republican convention, the balance was mostly even between the two, with Buckley holding a slight edge in debating skills and meticulously crafted replies. They had still gotten onto social issues where both men had diametrically opposite views and preferences. Two weeks later, the stage shifted to Chicago for the Democratic convention, and debates resumed with same intensity and from where they left off. Vidal-Buckley debates were imperceptibly becoming the barometer of the election, and the nation waited for its outcome in round two. Vidal began this second series with an upper hand. The moral and social chaos around, riots on streets and sense of dissatisfaction with republican policies gave him a good launching pad. Vidal was also the more street smarter of the two, and knew the pulse of the underbelly of America. Buckley on the other hand comes from Old England with a high nosed attitude on sensitive issues. It was evident as the debates entered its eighth of ninth installment, something within had to break, and one of these gentlemen would have give way to momentary weakness and get personal. On the eve of the tenth and final debate, riots on the streets had reached a new pitch, Police officers had opened fire on dissenters and the general mood was one of despondency. When Gore walked on to stage, it was clear he was on a moral high-ground, and steered the conversation towards totalitarianism, subtle references to Nazism and propaganda and use of violent force to curtail freedom. Buckley was visibly uncomfortable, but continued to maintain a straight face and usual wit until in one moment of debating brilliance Vidal subtly referred to Buckley as a “Crypto-Nazi” –which evinced a reaction from Buckley that still stuns us after fifty years. He replied instantly frothing in his lips, with ferocious anger, nearly at the edge of his chair with fingers maliciously pointing at Gore:

“Now listen, you queer - Stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I’ll sock you in your goddamn face and you’ll stay plastered…”

At this seminal moment, Vidal knew he had won the debate. It had gotten personal and physical, and once that happens between intellectuals discoursing at the highest levels of abstraction, defeat is a foregone conclusion. Millions watching couldn’t believe their eyes and ears. Gore with that sarcastic, placid grin on his face, and Buckley sweating and seething with visceral anger on being cornered by his opponent. Buckley refused to speak or comment on that reaction for the rest of his life. It was a regrettable moment in his otherwise peerless public life. He allowed his hatred for Vidal as Gay - and in his deep seated opinion of Vidal as a writer whose books (especially Myra Breckenridge) propagated unorthodox views of personal and social issues, and whose fame as Hollywood script writer, flamboyant socialite helped usher in a new set of decadent cultural values – get the better of him.

Both Vidal and Buckley died peacefully in early 2000’s. But the legacy of those debates is still resonating in every nation, in every TV channel that covers Elections. The slur that inadvertently emanated from Buckley’s lips corrupted political dialogue to one of personal Vendetta. The trend of having “political analysts” cover elections and take appropriate political stand on vital issues, often degenerating into vituperative dialogue has its precedent in Vidal-Buckley debates.

So when I said in the beginning of this essay that the sixties represented a turning point in America, it essentially boiled down to what Vidal and Buckley stood for? Buckley still believed in segregation of Blacks, imperialism of US, its sense of superiority and strict moral and sexual codes of conduct. On the other hand, Vidal was a passionate advocate of democracy, Hated US policy of going to war for reasons that don’t affect them directly, believed in equality of sexual preferences and most importantly emphasized the fact that founding fathers of USA wanted America to be a haven of liberal values and not a torch bearer of Moral righteousness of the globe. Well, it has been fifty years since Buckley-Vidal debates happened, and I don’t think we have sufficiently resolved or reached a conclusion on fundamental issues. Perhaps, we never will. Every period, every age will have to dig out their own sense of equilibrium. And it’s the way we achieve it that matters, not the end. For there can never be an end. Life is constant movement. The Hegelian dialectic of thesis, antithesis and synthesis is a cyclical operation. In the sands of shifting values, there will always be a Vidal and a Buckley. And there will never be comprehensive triumph, only an overarching synthesis.