When partisanship goes too far...

[tagryn]

Ran across a very disappointing comments thread on William F. Buckley's passing over at Eat Our Brains, a blog I usually enjoy. I found the glee at WFB's death very off-putting. Apparently speaking ill of the dead is considered OK by some, if they were politically on the other side.

I considered posting a rebuttal, but I figured, if someone is ideologically so far gone they're taking glee in someone's passing, they're too far gone to reach (by a few words on the Internet, anyway). By way of comparison, I disagreed with Paul Wellstone on most everything, but I felt no joy whatsoever in his passing. I don't think we check class and dignity at the door, just because we disagree with someone's philosophy; regardless of whether you agreed or disagreed with him, WFB was hardly Stalin or Mao.

Comments

[foomf.livejournal.com]

Is it OK to speak ill of the living?

What is it about being dead that makes someones actions no longer shameful or worthy of criticism? Is there a mandatory period of grace during which we are not permitted to speak ill of the dead?

Sorry, despite his profound intellect, erudition, wealth, and personal attractiveness, the man was an elitist snob, a racist, and gloated over his success in inspiring less gifted people to do things that were profoundly harmful to other people because those other people lacked the wealth and power to defend themselves.

This does not make him a demon, or even an unusually evil man, in and of itself, but it's the sum of all such acts over his life, and counterbalancing acts, which will determine whether he was despicable, bland, or laudable.

Discussion of the merits of his actions is important because those actions led and shaped the ongoing policies of many people in our government.

It's not a failure in ideology to speak ill of Mr. Buckley as a person (if you knew him and had reason to do so) nor to criticize his philosophies, actions, and the results of his intellectual leadership of a movement. It's a failure in morality to take glee in the pain of others, and it's a failure in manners to publicly rejoice in his passing. In that I agree with you. It's true he had little direct political power, and cannot be held accountable for crimes against humanity as Stalin could, or for instigating and ignoring them, as Mao could. It's not necessary for someone to be a paragon of tyranny to become, and be recognized, as a philosopher of tyranny.