'I think it worth noting who is conspicuously absent tonight’
“William Buckley is doing what he must do. He is a nobody. And nobodies must associate themselves with people who really are famous,” Vidal told his campaign staff ahead of the first televised debate among the candidates. Keating had wanted the debate most of all. He believed that a debate would show New Yorkers he was the most serious candidate of the four and that he most understood New York values. He also believed a televised debate would show Vidal’s intention for running (simply to irritate Kennedy) and also Buckley’s intention for running (simply to irritate Vidal). Keating, the statesman, would prevail and take the Senate seat with him. Vidal and Buckley immediately agreed to the debate, knowing that their candidacies would gain legitimacy as soon as they were placed on stage with the incumbent senator and the former U.S. Attorney General, brother of the late president. Vidal prepped for the meeting of the candidates as much as he possibly could, taking considerable time off of the campaign trail, much to the disappointment of his campaign staff and supporters. Vidal insisted that a win on the debate stage was crucial to his victory. William F. Buckley believed the debate his to lose. He was an intellectual and known for being articulate. Rather than prep on policy or style, he continued to cross the state campaigning. [1]
The Kennedy campaign was nervous about the debate. They feared that Keating would be able to expose Kennedy’s carpet-bagging candidacy and that elevating Vidal could hurt the campaign from the left. The former Attorney General decided that the best thing he could do was skip the debate, telling reporters he intended to meet the voters face-to-face. [2] The Vidal campaign was positively giddy over Kennedy’s announcement. With Kennedy out of the picture, Keating would be forced to consider Vidal his chief opponent while he was hit from Buckley on the right. Either Keating would get dragged to the right and alienate mainstream voters (and thereby make Vidal seem more sensible) or he would maintain his positions and face Buckley from the right. With Buckley and Keating going after one another, it would be Vidal who appeared the most statesman-like. Keating, too, was thrilled. He did not view Vidal or Buckley to be serious threats and so without Kennedy on stage, Keating would attack Kennedy for not showing up and win the night.
On the night of the debate, the candidates gathered in the studio. An empty chair was put out for the former Attorney General – at the urging of all three candidates. Kennedy dismissed the debate as a “made-for-television event” that would not truly serve the voters of New York. “Entertaining Mr. Vidal and Mr. Buckley is not worthy of the people of the Empire State,” Kennedy’s spokesman said. The comment served to enrage the far-left and the far-right as well as many New Yorkers who felt Kennedy was simply running to use them for his political gain.
The lights came up, the cameras came on, and the candidates began. Vidal had the first opening statement: “Good evening, and thank you for watching tonight. My name is Gore Vidal – you probably know me as an author and playwright, but I am also someone who cares deeply about the United States of America. I am here tonight because of a genuine concern for the future of our nation. I am running as an independent candidate – not associated with either of the two major parties. As I see it, they serve the same interests – themselves.” As Vidal came to an end, Buckley was surprised that he had not yet made a snide remark. The moderator thanked Vidal for his statement, and Vidal responded, “Oh one more thing, if I may quickly: I think it worth noting who is conspicuously absent tonight.” Game on.
Buckley was next to deliver an opening statement, in which he outlined and defended his conservative ideology: “I have met with and talked to a great many New Yorkers and, uh, it is very clear to me that something is wrong in New York. Something is critically wrong in New York. There is, I believe, a general dissatisfaction with those who have boasted their traditional – their professional qualifications. Senator Keating, I have great respect for him, but we cannot seriously expect the kind of new thinking New York, and our country needs. On the other hand, there is Mr. Vidal – a man for whom I have very little respect, but I do agree with him that Washington does not need another senator or another Kennedy, but rather a new voice. I just happen to believe Mr. Vidal’s is not the voice it should here, but rather one that emphasizes the people over some large and bureaucratic regime.” [3]
Keating boasted of his record of accomplishment as a senator and made great mention of the fact Kennedy had skipped the debate. He called the former Attorney General “a coward” (to which Vidal interrupted to say, “The senator is being far too kind to Mr. Kennedy, but I’ll allow it.”).
There was little controversy for much of the debate. While Keating was certainly the most versed in policy issues, Vidal and Buckley’s sophisticated rhetoric compensated for any discrepancy in policy minutiae. Each candidate reminded the voter subtly (and sometimes not subtly) that Robert F. Kennedy was too good for the people of New York to participate in the debate. Yet, the headline the next day would not be solely about Kennedy’s absence, instead the heated tempers of two candidates got the better of them. When the debate turned to the Great Society initiatives of President Johnson, Buckley delivered a principled “no government” message, much akin to the one Barry Goldwater was making around the country. Gore Vidal took his bait.
When asked to respond the playwright offered only a terse retort, “Well the heartless Mr. Buckley seems content to let the homeless starve.” Senator Keating shook his head, feeling where the debate was headed. Buckley was frustrated. “Oh, please! That’s hardly fair, Mr. Vidal –” But the man who had spent weeks prepping for the debate was unwilling to lose. He went in to land a final blow: “ At the very least I might suggest you let them eat cake, Mr. Buckley!” The moderator repressed a smile, but Buckley was enraged. Reaching over the table to get close to Mr. Vidal he jabbed his pointed finger at the man’s face, “Now listen here you queer –” Vidal let out a deep laugh while Senator Keating put his arm around Buckley to sit him down. The moderator raised his voice, interrupted, and brought the debate to closing statements.
It was a telling moment. It was the first mention of Vidal’s homosexuality on the campaign trail. Neither the Kennedy nor Keating campaigns had figured out a tactful way to bring the matter up in conversation without coming across as mean-spirited. Vidal himself rejected the very question. He was, by this time, living with his partner, Howard Austen. For the duration of the campaign, Austen stayed in their home in Italy while Vidal campaigned, hoping to avoid questions about his sexuality. Now, Buckley had opened the floodgates, but he had done so in a most vitriolic way. The image of him sneering at Vidal with his finger pointed was on the front page of the New York Times the next morning under the headline: SENATE DEBATE GETS UGLY AS CANDIDATE LOSES TEMPER. When Vidal saw, he was most amused. He wrote in a correspondence to Austen (that became public after his death), “It is ironic how the Times had a problem with me detailing two men having sex in [The City and the Pillar] and yet decided to be outraged about such ignorance now.” [4]
---
[1] The fact that Vidal prepped immensely and Buckley did not is consistent with their debates in 1968, according to the 2015 documentary Best of Enemies. Vidal is said to have spent a lot of time preparing while Buckley did not feel the need. While it could be argued that Buckley would be more particular with a Senate seat at stake, his self-confidence would likely not change and therefore, I conclude, produce the same result.
[2] This is based off of real life. Keating invited Kennedy to debate him and Kennedy refused. In real life, Kennedy was able to win the day. He returned to the CBS studio, demanding he be included (after initially refusing the invitation). Photographers captured him trying to get into the locked studio. Keating then fled the set, looking afraid to debate his opponent. (Evan Thomas, Robert Kennedy: His Life (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000), 301.)
[3] Partially based off of comments Buckley made on Meet the Press during his 1965 mayoral campaign. You can view that clip here: .
[4] Vidal had a notorious feud with the Times, and they refused to review his books – except, as Vidal wrote, “always badly in the Sunday supplement.” (Gore Vidal, Palimpsest (New York: Penguin Books, 1995), 89.)