Buckley vs Skousen
Listening to the tribute to WFB on C-Span, struck by something odd. Buckley was intensely involved in culture, a tremendous contributor to culture via his novels and his performance and "advocacy" for Bach. Yet he basically missed the entire switch of Communism from economic to cultural, which began around 1950 and finished its satanic work in 1973. In other words, WFB missed the transition from Marx-Lenin to Gramsci-Lenin. Most of his writing on Communism focused on the governmental and economic aspects, and National Review has carried the focus even farther.

Cleon Skousen, another Renaissance man of vastly less fame, didn't miss the transition. Skousen was on top of it from 1950 until his death in 2006. Of course he didn't found a magazine or a TV show, so his influence was limited.

Buckley's successors (NR, Rush, etc) have thus been punching hard at an enemy who is no longer in the same ring. When they inveigh against high taxes or big government, they are wasting their effort. Size of government really isn't the question, and reducing the government won't really solve anything, because the cultural virus is causing most damage outside of government.

Well, it's not quite that simple on second thought... the cultural virus has been most strongly imposed by the black-robed saboteurs who illegitimately occupy the Federal courts. Lowering taxes won't make any difference to them. The only thing that will make a difference is completely abolishing the federal court system, leaving it down for a few years, and then if we feel the need for something to replace it (which we won't) we could rebuild it with new non-treasonous judges. The Buckley followers sometimes complain about judges but never go beyond recommending "judicial restraint", which is another name for surrender. So they haven't entirely missed the problem, but they gravely underestimate its importance.
  ¶ 7:30 PM