William F. Buckley, Jr.’s exhortation to “Stop” and stand “athwart history” invites us to cast our gaze upon Goodness, Truth, and Beauty—and become apologists for them.
Jeth Fogg
Staff Writer, The Buckley Beacon
Editor’s note: This is a republication of Jeth Fogg’s (YC ‘27) winning essay from the Buckley Institute’s annual essay competition for Yale undergraduates.
_
It is all too easy to pigeonhole William F. Buckley’s clarion call to “[stand] athwart history” into a pithy expression of American conservatism. While this reading is heuristically credible, his sentiment reaches beyond political divides and attitudes towards progressivism’s ostensible societal advancement. His exhortation to “Stop” reverberates much deeper in the heart. William F. Buckley Jr.’s “Stop” testifies against a mephistophelan movement that seeks to degenerate human dignity. Far from ennobling the human person, modernism instead has denigrated humanity. Truly stopping entails participating in that which does not progress, but remains immutable. To stop means to elevate one’s mind to transcendental Goodness, Truth, and Beauty – and be an apologist for them.
In the words of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the West has experienced a “tilt of freedom towards evil,” where for many, the pursuit of happiness is transitory, and liberty has seeped into licensure. We have become too comfortable in our “cult of material well-being.” Solzhenitsyn’s words are haunting: “The forces of Evil have begun their decisive offensive. You can feel their pressure, yet your screens and publications are full of prescribed smiles and raised glasses. What is the joy about?” (A World Split Apart).
Solzhenitsyn penned these words in 1978, but their spirit traverses history. In 1793, the Reign of the Guillotine descended upon France following the execution of King Louis XVI. The Champs-Élysées resembled a slaughter bench more than the path of a democratic people. Rather than inducing the reign of Liberty, the malediction of revolutionaries begot bloodshed and sanguineous streets. American Federalists sought to circumscribe and preserve the flame of Liberty, unlike France, which was engulfed by its incendiary spirit. In an instance when the United States sought to forge its post-revolutionary national identity, some individuals chose to hasten the Constitution towards adopting radical conceptions of liberty that the French espoused, as though a toddler who had barely taken its first steps could dash towards utopian ideals. Federalists like Alexander Hamilton stood athwart this impudence with prudence.
A second example comes from a Bavarian’s 20th Century interpretation of an Early-Modern Spanish text. Miguel de Cervantes’s Don Quixote has the capacity to simultaneously edify and captivate its reader. It certainly had this effect for Joseph Ratzinger, who would later become Pope Benedict XVI. In the final pages of Principles of Catholic Theology, Ratzinger curiously chooses to reference Don Quixote, interpreting it as a spiritually edifying text. Why would the Holy Father decide to reference a text believed by many scholars to satirize the Middle Ages and herald modern secularism? And why would he do so at the end of an extensive theological text – that which is supposed to vindicate Goodness, Truth, and Beauty?
In his brilliance, even Pope Benedict XVI cannot help but marvel at the “noble foolishness Don Quixote chooses as his vocation” (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, 392). For Ratzinger, the figure of Don Quixote is a reminder that the simple pursuit of truth can seem foolish. Inwardly, the truth is the most noble endeavor that man can possibly conceive. Outwardly, such an endeavor can appear foolish, disruptive, or even condemnable. In the hands of modern readers, Don Quixote has suffered his own crucifixion for his chivalric faith. Ratzinger’s appeal, then, is to be a bit more quixotic. Pursue the “foolishness of the truth.” Be a fool for the truth in a modern society all too incredulous towards truth claims. It is this noble pursuit that will set you free. This preference for unyielding truth over the Avant-garde trends of a rapidly progressing society presents a rich sense of William F. Buckley recommendation to stand “athwart history.”
Today’s culture must emanate from a first principle. Ultimately, the issue amounts to this: will that first principle be material prosperity, equality of conditions, and lower-case liberty? Or will that first principle be the mystical union of Goodness, Truth, and Beauty, the font from which all these secondary precepts flow? William F. Buckley would prefer the latter. The modern world witnessed a Machiavellian redefinition of virtue as it breached modernity’s wall, with individualism emerging as the prevailing philosophical worldview in the West today. Take notice of the shift that has transpired over millenia: Goodness, Truth, and Beauty, once the ends of human life, have become mere diversions for most people today. If you were to ask people what their goal is in life, how many would respond that they first seek to cultivate Beauty, or embrace the Good? Answers like these would be scarce. If we continue to bifurcate these transcendental ends from our secondary values as Western civilization – noble as they might be – our destination might be ruinous.
The Bucklian proposal calls for a paradigm shift. Rather than acquiescing to mere self-interest, one should capitulate under the yoke of the Good, the True, and the Beautiful. Adhering to these forms might appear burdensome and unnecessary in a society that is markedly materialistic. As modern people, we seem to have belittled the fact that we exist as body-soul composites: no material progression will ameliorate the human condition unless our souls are replete with transcendental fruit. If we are to spearhead our plight, society must be ushered from the epistemic bondage of Plato’s cave and moral decay of Dante’s dark wood. However, this kind of mass exodus will never occur unless we become convincing apologists for Goodness, Truth, and Beauty.
This kind of apologetics must permeate all facets of society, from our Tocquevellian townships to the upper echelons of political life. Imagine a world in which we ask one another daily: “does this contribute to the Good? Is it true? How can I make my community more Beautiful?” Few could imagine this kind of discourse in some corners of society today – especially within the realm of politics. In this sense, entering into this kind of conversation invites a “Stop.” Try it in your next conversation. Temper the restlessness of the human heart with a gentle “Stop,” asking what someone sees to be Good, True, or Beautiful in this or that. This will force an introspection, and perhaps reconsideration on your interlocutor’s behalf. It is more difficult to have this kind of conversation, but it is the “Stop” in discourse and turn to the transcendental that an increasingly polarized society needs. This kind of conversation stands athwart innovation for innovation’s sake. It questions the rapid pace at which History is advancing. This gentle, transcendental discourse can rectify the human condition, and truly enlighten us as we steer the ship of state.