To The Editor: My first impressions of William F. Buckley were conflicting and sometimes confused. I had just made the transition from high school to college and it was the year of a presidential election. President Eisenhower was a “lame duck” and the Republican Party had obviously expected Richard Nixon, the vice president, to be a shoo-in. While all was rosy for the Republicans, the Democrats were embattled. The upstart Massachusetts U. S. Sen. John F. Kennedy seemed to be gaining traction in his quest to beat the venerable political power house Texas’ own Lyndon B. Johnson. When Buckley’s periodical, National Review, became a national phenomenon, no one thought “conservatives” could understand the finer points of our political system much less articulate in a written media anything that would be “legible” or “discernible” as having cognitive thought. In essence, so-called “conservatives” were thought of as radical fumbling bigots, with low IQs and of no political consequence. Buckley’s articulate dissertations on the Cold War, the economy and the concerns of communist influence both around the world and in the United States caught the attention of many new readers. Buckley’s “celebrity” catapulted him to the TV series “Firing Line,” and history was made. It was the first true “political” debate program. No longer was the impression that all “conservatives” were some sort of neo-Klansmen or racist-inspired malcontents on the fringe of society. While Kennedy charmed his way to the presidency, Buckley’s fame rose. The liberal establishment soundly panned his first notable literary work, “God and Man at Yale,” but it became a best seller anyway. The oxymoron was that a “Yaley” was a devout Roman Catholic, conservative and his anti-liberal rhetoric was sensible. Buckley’s era was devoid of much modern day technology. No Internet and no 24-hour televised news programming. Buckley himself, in his articulate and intellectual manner kept the public watching and listening. The socio-economic ethic changes in America are now so different than Buckley’s ‘50s-‘60s era. We are in many ways a different nation and culture. Buckley’s style as well as his knowledge catapulted him to being one of our nation’s icons. He would debate without being mean spirited even when confronted by those of different views who sought to badger him. The most ardent enemies of his philosophy always came away feeling they had been bested and sought yet another “round.” Buckley embraced his celebrity but was no snob. He befriended not only his philosophical allies but also those who had completely different political ideology. His long-standing friendship with ultra liberal economist John Kenneth Gailberth ended only with Gailberth’s death. His diverse background included a stint with the C.I.A., being an accomplished seaman, and an accomplished musician. He was the quiescent Renaissance man. His place in history cannot be denied. I worked on Buckley’s campaign for mayor of New York. It began more as a media opportunity but it ended with the solid formation of the Conservative Party in New York. The “traditionals” in America can likewise trace their linkage – from age to age – and so it was that the Buckley era – begot the Goldwater era, begot the Reagan era and hence geometrically spread from elected officials to media to carry on the American dream as articulated by Ronald Reagan – the “Shining City on the Hill,” the beacon of freedom and land of opportunity. We can still be patriots without it being “corny” or “unsophisticated.” Bill Buckley showed us how. ANTHONY T. DISIMONE Wildwood