Intrinsic in his statement is a distaste for the idea of blacks integrating with whites because he believe blacks to be inferior.

He was a white separatist through and through and did a great disservice to black people by fueling the idea of black inferiority that still underlies racial interactions today.

“I think that the impact of that bill should have been welcomed by us”

What? Is this an apology? Does this mean he believe that Blacks and Whites should live in harmony? Does he now believe that Blacks are not so inferior? It seems rather like he was saying the most convenient thing to escape having to face the consequences of his racist views.

“Your vicious attack on the character of such a truly charming gentleman”

Ha.

“National Review believes that the South’s premises are correct… It is more important for the community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority.”

These were straightforward factual statements supporting opinions reflecting common perception, not racism. For it to be racist he would have had to adopt the Nazi formulation that Whites are and forever will be the superior race. Intrinsic in his statement was the recognition that advanced status was transitory. He rather quickly came to regret his stance (although probably not the logic of it) and went on to vigorously debate George Wallace, staunchly oppose anti-Semitism, and he took on the true racist William Shockley noting that Asians and Jews tend to score more highly on intelligence tests than “individuals of our own race.” Again a simple factual statement well and easily proven. Bill Buckley was no racist; he was a relentless pursuer of truth and liberty.

Two years ago, Heidi Przybyla and Judy Woodruff of Bloomberg News wrote a profile in which the last paragraph read: “Buckley said he had a few regrets, most notably his magazine’s opposition to civil rights legislation in the 1960s. `I think that the impact of that bill should have been welcomed by us,’ he said.”

Wow! What humble contrition. Nothing there about how he and his magazine had referred to blacks as an inferior race. No regrets about having suggested that the Birmingham church bombing was the work “of a Communist, or of a crazed Negro.” But, hey, he wasn’t the kind of guy to prostrate himself.

A curious thing about Buckley is that his legacy seems to have more to do with his pretentious vocabulary and patrician style than with the durability of his ideas. Indeed, even as some of the commenters here have unwittingly pointed out, his ideas changed over the years. He evolved from cretinous, racist conservative to more of a — dare I say it? — a liberal. Gosh, he even ended up denouncing the war in Iraq. What a guy!

Many years ago I too was one of these heartless, soulless left-wing automatons. As I grew older and gained more experience in the reality of the world, I began to see just how damaging liberal policies actually were. Mr. Buckley’s magazine provided a thoughtful counterpoint to the prevailing liberal dogma. He enriched this country in a way that few could ever hope to, and his passing is certainly this country’s great loss and Heaven’s gain.