To this day, Buckley's politics are grounded less in democratic values--"Democracy just doesn't work, much of the time," he observed in a 2004 column--than in the twin virtues of Catholicism and capitalism.... Gradually, [National Review] became less Catholic than "Christian." But that was the limit of Buckley's ecumenicalism. In 1997, when he was scouring the ranks of talented younger conservatives to find a new editor for National Review, Buckley eliminated one prospect, his one time protege David Brooks, a rising star at The Weekly Standard. In a memo to board members, Buckley reported that he had discussed Brooks with NR alum George Will: "I said that I thought it would be wrong for the next editor to be other than a believing Christian."
DeLong is gleeful that he has caught Buckley in trap ("How did I miss this?"), but if he had managed to read the beginning of the same paragraph he might've noticed this:
Broadly tolerant, Buckley extirpated anti-Semitism from the postwar conservative movement in the 1950s and has since jokingly proposed that Israel be made the fifty-first state.
Maybe, just maybe, Buckley's inconsideration of Brooks had nothing to do with the fact the Brooks is an ethnic Jew per se, and everything to do with the fact that Buckley wanted the National Review to continue its legacy as an overtly orthodox Christian publication. Given Buckley's known proclivities, this seems more likely than a spurious allegation of anti-semitism.
And anyway, would DeLong have preferred Brooks to be the editor of NR? I think not.
Brad DeLong expects more from the mainstream press and blogosphere. Maybe we should expect more from him.