These words about Bill Buckley fit Jonah Goldberg:
He was ‘very good at discussing books he hadn’t read,’ as one of Bill’s favorite professors, the Yale philosopher Paul Weiss, later said.” “Buckley’s true métier as writer and talker—eventually reaching levels approaching genius,” according to Tanenhaus, “was for intellectual comedy, an almost continual repartee.” “His weapons were not his ideas, which could be heard elsewhere, but his words, which sparkled with freshness—much of the time, anyway.” “[Buckley] had befriended enough scholars to know he was not one of them. He liked knowing all the arguments—had an almost preternatural gift for assimilating first principles and lines of reasoning. But discovering new ideas or uncovering the hidden meanings of the old ones was not for him. He already knew what he thought and believed.” “He was a controversialist, not a thinker and still less a theorist.”
National Review used to primarily publish academics. Starting in the 1990s under Rich Lowry, it started primarily publishing pundits.
Grok says:
- “Very good at discussing books he hadn’t read”: This observation about Buckley, attributed to Yale philosopher Paul Weiss, highlights his ability to engage confidently in intellectual discussions without deep familiarity with the source material. Jonah Goldberg, a prominent conservative columnist and author, displays a similar knack. His work, including columns for National Review and books like Liberal Fascism, demonstrates a facility for engaging with broad ideas and cultural debates, often relying on a sharp wit and quick grasp of arguments rather than exhaustive scholarship. While there’s no direct evidence Goldberg discusses books he hasn’t read, his conversational style on podcasts (like The Remnant) and media appearances suggests a Buckley-esque ability to riff on complex topics with fluency, possibly beyond his depth of reading in some cases. This trait reflects a performative intellect, prioritizing rhetorical agility over meticulous research.
- “Intellectual comedy, an almost continual repartee”: Buckley’s genius, as described by Sam Tanenhaus, lay in his ability to blend humor and intellectual discourse, making arguments entertaining as well as persuasive. Goldberg shares this gift. His writing and commentary often employ sardonic humor, pop culture references, and a conversational tone to make conservative ideas accessible and engaging. For example, his G-File newsletters frequently weave humor with political analysis, much like Buckley’s televised banter on Firing Line. Goldberg’s ability to deliver sharp, witty takes—whether on X or in debates—mirrors Buckley’s flair for intellectual comedy, though Goldberg’s style leans more informal and populist, reflecting his era.
- “Weapons were not his ideas, which could be heard elsewhere, but his words, which sparkled with freshness”: Buckley’s originality lay in his rhetorical style rather than groundbreaking ideas. Similarly, Goldberg’s contributions to conservatism—while insightful—are often syntheses of existing libertarian or conservative thought, repackaged with fresh phrasing and cultural relevance. His critiques of progressivism or defenses of classical liberalism (e.g., in Suicide of the West) don’t necessarily introduce novel theories but shine through his accessible, often irreverent prose. Like Buckley, Goldberg’s strength is in how he communicates, not in generating wholly original ideologies.
- “Befriended enough scholars to know he was not one of them… assimilating first principles and lines of reasoning”: Buckley recognized his role as a communicator rather than a scholar, excelling at absorbing and articulating core arguments. Goldberg fits this mold. He engages with intellectuals (e.g., through National Review or his Dispatch ventures) and demonstrates a strong grasp of conservative principles, but he’s not a primary theorist like, say, a Yuval Levin or a Russell Kirk. His work often distills complex ideas for a broader audience, reflecting Buckley’s “preternatural gift” for understanding and conveying arguments without necessarily advancing new ones. Goldberg’s self-awareness as a pundit, not an academic, is evident in his focus on practical, culture-driven commentary.
- “A controversialist, not a thinker and still less a theorist”: This encapsulates Buckley’s role as a provocateur who thrived on debate rather than deep theoretical innovation. Goldberg, too, excels as a controversialist. His critiques of political trends—whether “woke” culture, Trumpism, or progressive policies—aim to provoke and challenge, often sparking debate on X or in media circles. While he’s capable of thoughtful analysis, his primary impact, like Buckley’s, is in shaping public discourse through pointed, accessible arguments rather than developing systematic theories.
In summary, these descriptions of Buckley align closely with Jonah Goldberg’s public persona and career. Both are masterful communicators who prioritize rhetorical flair, intellectual agility, and audience engagement over scholarly originality. Goldberg, like Buckley, thrives as a controversialist, wielding humor and words to advance conservative ideas, often synthesizing rather than inventing.
