did not mean physically. As an undergraduate,nMr. LeBoutillier was startlednat how the general condemnation ofnthe American system was combinednwith the remnants of snobbery he foundnsurviving in the old line campus clubs.nAs a graduate student he was appallednby the reverse side of the coin in thenhighly-regarded Harvard BusinessnSchool, where he found instruction andndiscussion geared to the conviction thatnprofits are the ultimate attainment,nethics and morality are discards, andnbribery can be considered a virtue alongnwith other questionable practices.nxdLarvard made LeBoutillier a Republican.nHe became interested in thensenate campaign of Lt. Col. Leo K.nThorsness, a Hanoi prisoner of war whonwalked out of Hanoi on his feet to challengenGeorge McGovern. Without experiencenin fund raising, LeBoutillierncollected more for the war hero by hisnletters and phone calls from his Harvardnroom than did the candidate’s state organization.nHe was invited to becomena finance chairman at the age of 20,nperhaps the youngest in political history.nThis feat also attracted the attentionnof the White House, to which henwas summoned in the 1967 presidentialncampaign, but where he found little tonattract or inspire him.nLeBoutillier entered the HarvardnBusiness School after deciding to makena career of politics. He believes thatnlawyers have failed and that governmentnshould be run like a business; therefore,nit needs men of business training.nHe holds that labor leaders have, allntoo often, mistreated and deceived theirnmembership; that religious leaders arenoften old, tired and bankrupt of ideas,nalthough never before have so manynyoung people believed in God; professionalnmen—in law, business and medicine—arenbeing criticized, as nevernbefore, for greed and lack of ethics, andneducators are being distrusted, whichnwas not so until recently.nHis remedy is to find, educate andnelect leaders that have faith in American18nChronicles of Culturenand its world role, which is to bear anlight “unto all nations.” LeBoutillierndescribes himself as a Republican fornhistorical reasons, naming and dwellingnon David Wilmot, the Pennsylvaniancongressman, who introduced the provisionndesigned to keep slavery out ofnthe territory taken from Mexico, andnGalusha Grow, another legislator fromnthe same state, who fathered the HomesteadnAct. He holds these forgottennfigures to be men of dedication and soul,nlike Abraham Lincoln, whose counterpartsnare needed today. His enthusiasmnfor Wilmot and Grow is understandable,nyet slavery would have been ended withoutnWilmot’s prod which was nevernpassed, and western lands would havenbeen thrown open to settlement withoutnGrow. Neither was alone in his cause.nMany hated slavery and many wantednpublic lands thrown open to settlement,nincluding such Democratic stalwarts asnThomas Hart Benton of Missouri, whonlost his senate and house seats becausenof his growing opposition to slavery,nand Horace Greeley, now rememberednfor his, “Go west, young man.” Thus,nit may be that LeBoutillier adoptednGrow to give a historical background tonhis own program for political reform.nHe contends both major parties havenfailed the people and offers what henpresents as the New Homestead, a programnabove and beyond the New Dealnand the New Frontier.nThis program, he insists, is necessarynto enable middle and lower classnAmerican families to acquire homes,nto help the deserving obtain higherneducation, to assist in meeting risingnhealth costs and to provide for newntypes of government under which newnmechanisms would be developed to allownAmericans a greater participatorynrole in their local communities. Henwould promote local planning and developmentndistricts, consolidate districtsnto bring suburbs and their bigncity neighbors closer together for mutualnbenefits, introduce new roles for thengovernment to help areas in trouble andnestablish ten regional councils undernnnwhich various government activitiesnwould be closer to the people they serve.nFinally, he would seek to strengthennfamilies and place them in control ofnthe government.nNeedless to say, this program willndraw as much criticism from politiciansnas his criticism of Harvard, and theneducational system it has sponsored,nwill draw from the academic community.nBoth can be reproached for immaturity.nLeBoutillier can expect no embracesnfrom those dedicated to the principlenthat all problems can be solvednby throwing money at them, or fromnthose who contend that they can solventhe problems of the rest of us betternthan we can by waving their graduatendegrees.nJLeBoutillier will be compared, nondoubt unfavorably, to William F. Buckley,nJr., who looked on his alma mater,nafter his graduation in 1950, and foundnit wanting. Some may label LeBoutilliernthe new Buckley, but others will brandnhim as more violent and angry. Which isnin keeping with the nature of things;nas time goes by, everything becomesnworse—even the Ivy League Schools. DnCommendablesnOn Frost’s LegacynFrost: Centennial Essays HI: Editednby Jack Thorpe; University Press ofnMississippi; Jackson, Mississippi.nIf art is not to be used as a steppingnstone to reinforce the actions and habitsnof an artist’s life, if the interpretationnof art should not be solely based onnspecific events that occurred in annartist’s personal life—critics and literarynhistorians would have little to do. Thenthird volume on Frost, initiated by thencentennial of the poet’s birth, achievesnthat delicate balance of discussing thenman and his art without stating that onenis directly responsible for the other.n