Friday, April 19, 1996 | 11:59 a.m.
Let's call it a terminal case of irreconcilable differences.
Calling it a battle of wits might belittle the insightful exchange of ideas staged by two icons of liberal and conservative thinking -- John Kenneth Galbraith and William F. Buckley Jr.
Though the moderator judged the debate to be a draw, there was clearly a winner -- the audience of 1,900 crammed into UNLV's Artemus Ham Hall Thursday.
To commemorate the 15th anniversary of the Barrick Lecture Series, the duo returned for a repeat of their debate in January 1983. The series is sponsored by a $1 million endowment from Las Vegas philanthropist Marjorie Barrick in memory of her husband, Edward.
Appropriately standing to the left and right, liberal economist Galbraith and conservative writer and television host Buckley traded barbs on political ideology, in jest and in earnest. Their friendship was evident, as was their incongruity of opinion.
Buckley began the discussion on the topic, "Is the GOP headed in the right direction?" (pun intended).
"It is difficult to imagine a situation where there is a problem that doesn't relate to government," Buckley said, recounting millions of people killed by acts of government around the world.
Government has an appetite for power, "which we unfortunately take for granted," Buckley said. Many still believe that people run for president because they have a purpose that is not self-serving and an idea in mind for altering the country's ailments, he added.
"I won't ask anyone to explain President Clinton's presidential policies to me, because even Mr. Clinton doesn't know what his policies are. He has contradicted himself on nearly every issue," Buckley said.
The federal government has outgrown its usefulness and forgotten its purpose, in its zealous quest for more power, according to Buckley. He remarked that state funds shipped to the federal government are processed and returned in much the same form "after having had a very expensive night on the town."
Needless to say, Galbraith disagreed.
"Obviously, there are areas of intelligence that must now be opened up," he began after Buckley warned the audience not to be beguiled by Galbraith's eloquence.
Galbraith said liberals are to blame for the perverse view conservatives hold of their accomplishments.
"We've allowed conservatives to have a view of liberalism that is not to be reconciled in reality ... by the fact that we took credit for, and more recently the blame, for enhanced (social programs)," Galbraith said.
He said the natural metamorphosis of society is responsible for the growth of social programs, not liberals. Though he credited liberalist thinking for meeting the needs of society that has evolved from a rural farm industry to an industrialized mecca.
In the days when farms dominated the landscape, the old were cared for by family, unemployment was irrelevant, health care was affordable and accessible, according to Galbraith, the author of "The New Industrial State." He insists that pervasive social programs were made necessary by the modern consumer society.
"Let's confess some guilt, no matter how unnatural that may be. We allowed you conservatives to believe we were the force of change. Now it is their misfortune to believe it," Galbraith said. "Had we done it, they could change it."
But they can't change history, Galbraith remarked.
Buckley countered that before the government adopted a war on poverty and unemployment, the two social ills had been contained for decades compared with today, where they continue growing.
"Liberalism has the bad name it deserves," Buckley said, adding that in their efforts to improve health care, liberals might institute a war on sickness.
"I do acknowledge error when error exists, but when you have to invent error as Buckley just did, I don't see any reason to justify it," Galbraith said.
He noted that the great "Republican revolution" of the past two years has produced enormous volumes of discourse, but "very little action." He said the effect was due to the "controlling role of history."
Galbraith describes liberalism as having no set rules or agenda other than "taking appropriate steps in response to a particular situation" to do what's best for the public.
Buckley countered that "the history of liberalism in the last generation is a history of utter failure."
archive
