Buckley Questions the Establishment

Why should the concept of an American Establishment, first introduced into American journalism, according to Rovere, by National Review, be so fascinating to so many people? The answer is complicated. It has to do, first, with the difference in attitude, in England and here, toward a national Establishment. In England, most influential people like to feel they are in the Establishment. Here, especially among intellectuals, the desire is to be thought of as too independent a spirit to be a part of any movement which is powerful, and institutionalized, let alone one of which it might be said that it is also an apparatus. Thus, when Rovere writes that his buddy Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. “has connections with the Establishment” it becomes dismally complicated to sort out everything Rovere is trying to communicate. At least this much he seems to be trying- to say: (1) There is no Establishment, so anything I say about Arthur’s connection with it is playful, and not to be taken seriously. However, (2) what I say must have at least a superficial plausibility, if I am to bring off this spoof; and it is of course true that Arthur is very well connected with very powerful people: for instance, at the national level, the President of the United States; at the professional level, Harvard University; at the level of high-brow journalism, myself. And I, er, know the President pretty well, who, of course, is an overseer of Harvard, where he has known Arthur for years, and of course Arthur wrote a lot of his speeches for him and a book, Kennedy or Nixon: Does It Make Any Difference?, which may have swung as many votes as the margin Kennedy won by, who knows? And then, Arthur and I wrote a book together–yes, it is plausible to suggest that Arthur has connections with something that might be called The Establishment. But remember!–there is no such thing.

–William F. Buckley, Jr., “The Genteel Nightmare of Richard Rovere,” Harper’s Magazine, Aug., 1962.