Getting It Right: A Novel

Rating:
Summary: Plenty for Everyone
Review: "Getting It Right", could not have been entitled getting it correct. But unlike many of Mr. Buckley's books this work is not exclusively for people who come under the moniker of Conservative. This is not to say that Mr. Buckley has abandoned those philosophies he has held for his lifetime, rather with this work he brings together a variety of groups that have at one time or another have been placed firmly on the, "Right", and shows just how disparate a given category can be.

This is a novel but it is historical fiction predicated upon actual meetings that the author was a party to, gatherings he attended, articles that were written about him and his magazine The National Review, and a variety of other published material from a wide spectrum of thought. And this is a book that goes beyond politics to philosophy, religion, the relevance of altruism, and many other issues.

Labels are easy to place but they suffer from the same shortcomings and hopeless inadequacies that any generalizations immediately suffer from the moment they are invoked. Where would you place categories of thought, or defined groups like the following, Libertarian, Conservative, The John Birch Society, Young Americans for Freedom, or those who are labeled Objectivists?

All words credited to Robert Welch in the book are his; the same is the case with another prominent figure in the book Ayn Rand. These two founders, respectively, of the John Birch Society and the philosophy of Objectivism should provide enough material on their own to cause endless hours of debate about the book. Ayn Rand is the author of the widely read and very influential works including, "Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, and The Virtue of Selfishness", amongst others.

To keep this time period from 1958 to 1966 at a constant boil Mr. Buckley brings two young people together. And these are not just any two youthful idealists, one is part of Ayn Rand's group and the other is..........well, you can imagine.

The book takes the reader from a young Mormon Missionary being shot as the Soviet Military attempts to stop persons from fleeing Hungry, through the Eisenhower years, and on to Kennedy's abbreviated presidency and the turmoil that President Johnson faces and proceeds to compound exponentially. And of course for added spice, "Tricky Dick", makes cameo appearances whenever the warring parties of, "The Right", need an additional bit of behind the scenes mischief. There are many other complex people that play appear from Alan Greenspan to Whittaker Chambers, and they, like the major characters ensure there is an angle for anyone who picks up the book to either champion or condemn, or attack for the pure love of debate.

I am a great admirer of Mr. Buckley for his works of fiction and non-fiction. His last 2 books have been either clearly disappointing, or confusing. This is not the case with, "Getting It Right". This is a wonderful read from a great writer and mind, and a book that will appeal to a much wider readership than those that think if Mr. Buckley has written it, then it is only for subscribers to, "The National Review".

Rating:
Summary: Wonderful read
Review: A compelling read. I particularly appreciated the characterization. Ayn Rand as Jim Jones, with just a touch of Colonel Klink, was inspired. Dead on, and don't let other reviews fool you - wonderfully perceptive vis-à-vis the Witchdoctress that was Rand and her cult.

For a slim volume, there was a sprawling, across-the-years feel that delighted as well as informed.

I have always enjoyed Mr. Buckley's work. This was no exception, and hats are off. Could Mr. Buckley be persuaded to apply the same dramatic instinct with knowledge of recent history to finally do justice to President Reagan?

The ending, although something of a letdown, was true to the novel, and true to the era and the people it portrayed. What else could Woodroe do?

Highly recommended. A great gift idea for your conservative friends - and an even better idea for your leftist ones.

Rating:
Summary: Coming of age of a Conservative movement
Review: A fascinating, full of facts William F. Buckley's "Getting It Right" is a must read for every young conservative. This story of a Republican Party's quest for its ideals is told as seen through the eyes of two young activists, who witnessed the foundation of and participated in two significant movements in American politics, the John Burch Society and Nathaniel Branden Institute. The book is filled with priceless facts of post-WWII America's political spectrum, masterfully delivered by Buckley from a fresh angle. Two-hundred-and-six-page-long, this novel covers a ten year period from 1955 to early 1965 and is informative as much as entertaining.
A much recommended page-turner.

Rating:
Summary: A wretched excuse of a novel
Review: As a long-time professional reviewer, I've had the good fortune to read any number of wonderful novels. But luck wasn't with me this time. William F. Buckley's purported historical novel is utterly wretched, either as sound history or as readable fiction. The lapses in drama, dialogue, and characterization are laughable; the liberties taken with historic facts and the reputations of historic personages are unconscionable. The only reason I didn't score this piece of [garbage] a zero here, is that the option wasn't available to me. For my full review of the book, which explains the reasons for my antipathy in colorful detail, go to:

[local website]

Rating:
Summary: Getting Rand Wrong
Review: Ayn Rand died in 1982. Over 20 years later, William F. Buckley writes a clever novel--GETTING IT RIGHT--with the apparent hope of burying her and her philosophy, Objectivism. Ayn Rand took the innovative approach of using the novel form to explain and dramatize her radical views on the nature of man. Buckley's novel is also intended to promulgate his philosophy, but, unlike Rand, he clearly prefers logical fallacy (i.e., "ad hominem" attacks) over logical argument.
Buckley demonstrates some skill as a writer of popular historical fiction, weaving actual events into a plausible story line with believable characters and crisp dialogue. His purpose is ostensibly to show how contemporary conservatism triumphed over two "extremist" influences popular in the 1960s--Ayn Rand's Objectivism and The John Birch Society. As reviewer Austin Bramwell notes in Buckley's NATIONAL REVIEW, the Birch society's conspiratorial rantings lost most of their audience with the death of the Soviet Union. So Buckley can reasonably celebrate some success on that score. Ayn Rand, however, remains a formidable secular opponent of those (like Buckley) who appeal to a religious defense of Capitalism.
In her recent book SLANDER, Ann Coulter--a former writer for NATIONAL REVIEW--lambasts liberal media, including book publishers, for hiding the sales figures of "conservative classics." The largest selling book on her list (by a long shot) is not Buckley's GOD AND MAN AT YALE (69,700 copies) but Ayn Rand's ATLAS SHRUGGED (4,132,000 copies). Buckley's novel, then, while offered as an historical epitaph for two rival procapitalist movements, seems more like an indulgence in wishful thinking.
But, perhaps, on the other hand, Buckley should be given some credit. Few religious conservatives, after all, seem willing to openly confront Ayn Rand's ideas. Most of them (e.g., Rush Limbaugh, Dennis Prager, Michael Medved) prefer to pretend that she and her pro-reason, pro-self-interest philosophy never existed. In his novel, however, Buckley confesses that, just like his colleagues, he has no answers to her arguments. Instead, he attacks her philosophy by attempting to reveal that she may have been less than a perfect embodiment of her own ideas (which, true or false, is clearly a "non sequitur").
Following the miserable traumatic clash between Ayn Rand and her foremost spokesman, Buckley writes: "...the whole objectivist business was now demonstrated to be phony..." In other words, since Ayn Rand was now shown to be a fallible human being, her entire philosophy must also be false.
No, Mr. Buckley. Sorry. You'll have to do a lot better than that. But thank you for telling your readers--many of whom are no doubt starved for a rational alternative to traditionalist conservatism--that Objectivism is alive and well.

Rating:
Summary: More Fiction Than Historical?
Review: Being from Utah, this book attracted my curiousity when the book jacket showed the main character, Woodroe was a Mormon. It is not too often that you see a name author choose to make someone of my faith the center of a story.

I was disappointed that Mr. Buckley did not seem to conduct the level of research one would except from someone of his stature. The number of inacuracies about Mormons and Utah is surprising. Couldn't he get a NR intern to do some basic fact checking? Some things are minor like his mentioning the University of Salt Lake City which does not exist, or that Woodroe is from a town north of the Salt Lake. Look at a map, there are no towns on the north end of the Great Salt Lake.

Most incredible are the situations he puts Woodroe in early in the book when he is serving as a missionary. LDS missionaries always work and travel in pairs, but Buckley totally ignores this basic tenant so he can get his main character into situations that would not happen to a normal missionary.

Later in the book it turns out that Woodroe is not all that commited to his faith. Buckley could have developed his character better to show why this happened.

I am not as familiar with the other institutions that he tackles in the book (The JBS and Ayn Rand) but if he was as sloppy in representing them as he was the Mormons than there is probably more fiction in this work than meets the eye.

Rating:
Summary: More Fiction Than Historical?
Review: Being from Utah, this book attracted my curiousity when the book jacket showed the main character, Woodroe was a Mormon. It is not too often that you see a name author choose to make someone of my faith the center of a story.

I was disappointed that Mr. Buckley did not seem to conduct the level of research one would except from someone of his stature. The number of inacuracies about Mormons and Utah is surprising. Couldn't he get a NR intern to do some basic fact checking? Some things are minor like his mentioning the University of Salt Lake City which does not exist, or that Woodroe is from a town north of the Salt Lake. Look at a map, there are no towns on the north end of the Great Salt Lake.

Most incredible are the situations he puts Woodroe in early in the book when he is serving as a missionary. LDS missionaries always work and travel in pairs, but Buckley totally ignores this basic tenant so he can get his main character into situations that would not happen to a normal missionary.

Later in the book it turns out that Woodroe is not all that commited to his faith. Buckley could have developed his character better to show why this happened.

I am not as familiar with the other institutions that he tackles in the book (The JBS and Ayn Rand) but if he was as sloppy in representing them as he was the Mormons than there is probably more fiction in this work than meets the eye.

Rating:
Summary: READ AS PART OF A THREE-PART PROCESS
Review: Bill Buckley is a giant of intellect and a hero of the conservative movement. This novel details influential times in his life. It is well written and, if one is politically savvy, enjoyable, but not a masterpiece. My opinion is that this book should be viewed as part of a three-setp process, which involves Ayn Rand.

Buckley was influenced by Rand and this book details the struggle in the early 1960s between the Randian, Goldwater and Rockefeller wings of the pre-Vietnam Republican party.

My suggestion is to read this book, then watch Rand's "The Fountainhead" on video, then read Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" (all 1168 pages). Then you should get the overall context.

STEVEN TRAVERS
AUTHOR OF "BARRY BONDS: BASEBALL'S SUPERMAN"
[e-mail]

Rating:
Summary: Pure Fiction
Review: Both critics and admirers of William F. Buckley credit him with sanitizing the Right. By writing many dissenting voices out of polite society, they say that Buckley made the modern respectable conservative movement possible. His fans will say that this was necessary to make the conservative message acceptable to the public and made the Reagan and Gingrich "revolutions" possible, while his foes will say that he kept the conservative movement from truly conserving anything. While Buckley also excommunicated libertarians, isolationists, and many other dissenters the two most famous cases were that of the John Birch Society and Ayn Rand.
Buckley's latest novel, Getting It Right, takes a look at these two movements and implicitly shows why it was necessary for the excommunication of the Randians and Birchers. Getting It Right chronicles the ideological journeys of two young anti-communist lovers who met at the famous Sharon Summit where Young Americans for Freedom was founded. Leonora Goldstein was a young Randian who went to work as a secretary for Barbara Branden, and Woodroe Raynor who works for the John Birch Society and follows the eccentric General Ed Walker. Walker was a World War II hero who led the federal troops that forcibly integrated Little Rock. He was later forced out of the army for making speeches to troops in Germany that accused many major American politicians and media figures of being Communist. He then went on to protest the federal government's attempt to integrate Ole Miss.
The two figures argue amongst each other showing flaws in both systems and they of course end up getting engaged as respectable National Review conservatives. Unfortunately, their intellectual odyssey to get there was largely uninteresting. Woodrow never buys the more extreme conspiracy theories harbored by Birchers, and Leonora seems always uneasy with Objectivist's authoritarian and overly ideological stances. Woodrow ends up quitting the Society after reading Revilo Oliver's piece on the JFK assassination which essentially says Kennedy was as much a criminal as was Oswald. Leonora quits after Nathaniel and Barbara Branden are excommunicated from Rand's inner circle.
Buckley of course focuses on the least pleasant aspects of the John Birch Society and Rand's Collective. The main focus on Rand is her affair with Branden. When dealing with the John Birch Society, he spends more time on General Walker and Revilo Oliver, a man who was eventually forced out of the Society for his anti-Semitism, than on Robert Welch. Interestingly enough, Oliver originally wrote for National Review and was a close friend of Buckley's, indeed a member of his wedding party. National Review also editorialized in defense of Walker after he was arrested for his protest. They hoped "that all civil libertarians in the United States will take on the General Walker case, and that President Kennedy will telephone his condolences to him in jail, that being his habit when people involved in racial entanglements are abused by local courts, proving that Mr. Kennedy is willing to intercede on behalf of the victimized, irrespective of race, color, or creed." Obviously if someone wrote anything like that today, the mini-cons at National Review would call for their head.
More importantly is the fact that this book only touches on Buckley's excommunication of the Randians and Birchers. While I don't think Buckley should have written either group out of the conservative movement, the book still accurately shows the absurdities of some of the John Birch Society's conspiracy theories, and the cult-like atmosphere of the Objectivists.
In fact it was not really the kookiness of the John Birch Society that led to their excommunication. By Buckley's own account the final straw in writing out the Birchers was Robert Welch's editorial opposing the Vietnam War.
The book does not talk about the outrageous purges of people like John T. Flynn and Murray Rothbard. In fact the only mention of Rothbard is in the context of him being forced out of the Rand's inner circle. We are told that the major differences between Rothbard and Rand was that Rothbard did not support the Goldwater campaign because "he says political action doesn't work in a 'statist society.'" Of course Rothbard supported Thurmond, Taft, and a host of other political campaigns. The reason he opposed Goldwater's campaign was clearly stated. He believed that while Goldwater was better than Johnson on domestic issues, he would not be capable of making any real reforms with a Democratic Congress and he didn't wish to make radical changes on many fronts (like abolishing the income tax, anti-trust laws, or social security.) On foreign policy, where the president unfortunately can do quite a bit of damage without Congress, Rothbard thought that Goldwater was more warmongering and interventionist than Johnson.
George Orwell famously wrote, "who controls the past controls the future," and this book will surely be used to justify future purges by National Review. So using the precedent of Buckley's purges, David Frum wrote a cover story in National Review calling for National Reviewians to "turn their backs" on paleos. The next day, he printed a letter by an ex-paleo who wrote that "[i]t's time that [paleos] went the way of Objectivism and The John Birch Society."
Unfortunately for Frum and his cohorts, this parallel is not completely accurate. For one, as Paul Gottfried has observed, the conservative wars described in Getting It Right were waged among parties who agreed on most issues and claimed a common legacy. Paleoconservatives and neocons have absolutely nothing in common. More importantly, regardless of what David Frum and Jonah Goldberg claim, the anti-war right is a diverse group of intellectuals who are dissatisfied with the status quo of the Right. That National Review feels obliged to try to write them out of the movement time and time again testifies to their endurance.

from http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/epstein11.html

Rating:
Summary: No There, There
Review: Doing no research of his own, Buckley relies almost exclusively upon the biography of Rand by Barbara Branden. This has been thoroughly refuted by schoars like James Valliant. This is bad fiction built upon bad fiction...