The question was raised about the resemblance between fundamentalism and political conservatism. This is of reasonable interest to many of our readers and it is worth a comparison.

Some of the similarities here got me to thinking. So to begin with, I twiddled on over to the John Birch site to see how they wrote of Buckley's death. You might well want to read this and notice the likeness to the sort of fundamentalist scandal-sheet prose some of us have come to despise, but you can learn something if all you read is this paragraph:

Buckley endeared himself to conservatives with his strong support of the candidacies of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. But he lost support among many when he backed the giveaway of the Panama Canal, called for legalization of marijuana, touted compulsory national service, excused the deficiencies of the United Nations, and even advocated wage and price controls. His choice of close friends included such liberals and internationalists as economist John Kenneth Galbraith, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, and self-identified neoconservative leader Irving Kristol.

Notice the glaring absence of ideas, the lack of focus on any principles on which political action might rest; notice the fixation on selected policies and loyalty to ideology from which there can be no acceptable departure. (Notice that no mention is made of Buckley's comment about tattooing homosexuals.) Notice the fondness for conspiracy theories. Notice how easily one can be censured by casting aspersions on personal friendships. I think this is fascinating.

I think it is indicative.

Buckley said and wrote many things that conservatives found a) objectionable, b) infelicitously proposed, or c) insufficiently nuanced. But conservatives realized it was a political movement, not The Kingdom. The resurgence of the Conservative movement provided us with a Reagan, a Thatcher, and the end of the cold war. What has the John Birch society given us? John F. McManus?  A few giggles?

Conservatives hold a set of political virtues worth articulating and defending, fundamentalism doesn't. I know they will howl at this, but just put your fingers in your ears for the duration. (The duration is generally about a week in length. Fundamentalists cannot even agree on what is worth saving.) If there were a fundamentalism worth saving, I would be interested in hearing why there wasn't a fundamentalism J. Gresham Machen found worth joining. That might be the beginning of an enlightening conversation.

I think the answer is all around us.

There are many ways this has been made clear to us. If we look at the resurgence of conservatism we can look to many very real and practical means to their ends: ways of articulating and defending. Where is there for fundamentalism:

a National Review or American Spectator?
an ISI?
a Grove City or a Hillsdale College?
a Regnery Publishing?

Where are the Whittaker Chamberses, Russell Kirks, L. Brent Bozells, Friedrich von Hayeks...? What we in fact have is a loose confederacy of reactionaries who are happy to settle for Sheffey, Soundfroth and the Pettit Roving Hayseeds. Where would you send a spittle-flinging fundamentalist to get a terminal degree? What good reason is there that in a wealthy nation like the United States there is not a single seminary of adequate stature?

There were at one time some good books from Machen and a widely circulated set of ideas in the form of The Fundamentals. Whatever happened to them? Why did we end up with the BJ skit teams and G. Archer Weniger? Here, this is not my characterization, it is theirs:

Somehow in his busy schedule Weniger found time to write. In the early '50s he started a newsletter called The Blu-Print, which was printed back and front on a single 11 x 14 sheet of blue paper. It seems to be remembered most for its sometimes caustic style in exposing the hypocrisy of New Evangelicalism and the evil of liberalism. More than anything else, this paper seemed to give Weniger the image of being harsh. Less remembered, however, are its positive aspects; almost every issue of The Blu-Print contained a "note promoting some preacher, praising someone's effort, or pushing someone's paper or book. . . . It seemed to please Dr. Weniger to recognize and promote others. . . . His unselfish love for the brethren was an example to all Fundamentalists." Although his hide may have been tough, Weniger's heart remained tender.

Yes, how many was the time I laid down a tear-stained copy of The Blu-Print saying to myself, "Now there is a man with a tender heart".

Here is an indicator for the viability of a movement: why not let's have the FBF scan and publish the entire, unedited run of The Blu-Print?

To be reminded of this causes a lot of veins to bulge among those still loyal to this movement, but it never seems to cause any serious reflection. Fundamentalism is in its dotage, it embraced The Blu-Print for its conspicuous "love for the brethren" and all criticism of this mentality can still be deflected with a snappy little "Get over it".

Al Regnery said something recently that I found useful. He was asked to describe the relationship between the Republican Party and the conservative movement. The short version of his fuller answer was that the GOP was the political machinery for making nominations and producing candidates; the conservative movement was a set of ideas suspended in the minds of people capable of entertaining ideas. To whatever degree Regnery is correct, I think it sheds a lot of light on all religious movements today, including historical fundamentalism: heavy on the Party, light on the ideas.

Along came Marx, Darwin and Freud; you have a political/cultural response now being recalled upon the death of a founder of a major movement. You also had religious response. Where is the mystery in understanding the current wasteland of American Christianity?