sible prison term of nine and a half years,rnshe has been fortunate.rnIn an effort to deflect criticism forrnprosecuting Flinn for her private life, AirrnForce Chief of Staff General RonaldrnFogleman said the case was really aboutrnlying and insubordination, not “the adulteryrnthing.” Yet adultery is a crime underrnthe Uniform Code of Military Justice becausernit is a destructive and dishonorablernaction that can undermine an officer’srnability to command and certainly reflectsrnbadly on the service he or she represents.rnIt can make a serviceman or woman vulnerablernto blackmail. And it can lead tornthe very behavior Flinn showed: lyingrnto superiors and disobedience to directrnorders.rnFlinn’s supporters do not see it thatrnway. Demonstrating beautifully justrnhow the Republican Party supports familyrnvalues. Senator Trent Lott of Mississippirnwas quoted in the New York Timesrnas saying, “We have just got to accountrnfor the fact that men and women arerngoing to have relationships that lead tornmarriage and perfectly wholesome relationships,rnand we should not wind uprnpunishing them by dragging themrnthrough courts-martial in every instance.”rnThe fact that Flinn and Marc Zigornwere sexually involved within a week ofrntheir meeting; that Flinn knew Zigo andrnhis then wife were living together, whateverrnhe told her of being separated; thatrnFlinn was frequently in their home inrnthe guise of a friend; that Zigo has in thernpast been charged with beating his wife;rnthat he is every way a phony, right downrnto his suicide attempt—surely this is arnwholesome couple only in the eyes of arnUnited States Senator, the colleague ofrnKennedy and Hatfield and any numberrnof other men who long ago left their firstrnwives behind. (As we go to press, anotherrnfamily-values Republican, formerrnMaine Senator and now Defense SecretaryrnWilliam Cohen, is defending thernappointment of four-star Air Force GeneralrnJoseph Ralston to Chairman of thernJoint Chiefs, even though Ralston hadrnan adulterous affair several years ago. “Irnam satisfied General Ralston’s conductrnwas neither prejudicial to good order andrndiscipline nor discrediting to the armedrnforces,” Cohen said. What’s sauce forrnthe goose is not sauce for the gander.)rnSadly, not just to senators but to arnlarge number of regular Americans,rnFlinn is a martyr of the heart. Some ofrnthem believe that “love” (defined as thernneed to sleep with somebody) outweighsrnhonor and duty. Others contend thatrnbecause one man gets away with murder,rnall murderers should go unpunished—anrnargument that has never made a lick ofrnsense. Surely the injustice of selectivernprosecution is not that some people arernpunished too heavily, but that others arernpunished too lightly. Those who are cryingrnstill that Flinn’s punishment was notrnlight enough should remember thatrnwhile Airman Gayla Zigo has had thernmortification of seeing her bad marriagernon the national news, and Marc Zigo hasrnbeen exposed from coast to coast as arncad, civilian Kelly Flinn is fielding jobrnand book and no doubt movie offers.rnNominally independent, the ArmedrnServices are highly political places, andrngreat pressure was brought to bear on AirrnForce Secretary Sheila Widnall andrnGeneral Fogleman to let Flinn off. Theyrndeserve credit for holding what groundrnthey could, in refusing an honorary discharge.rnHere’s hoping that there is a servicemanrnor two sitting tonight in a barrncalled Peyton Place, raising a glass torntheir decision.rn—Katherine DaltonrnDONALD I. WARREN, R.I.P. DonaidrnWarren’s untimely death in May hasrndeprived the American and Europeanrnpopulist right of a truly penetrating analyst.rnFrom his pioneering study of “MiddlernAmerican radicals,” a term he coinedrnin 1976, to his dense biography of FatherrnCharles Coughlin published last year.rnProfessor Warren examined in depthrnthe populist bridge between modernrndemocracy and social reaction. Thoughrnby no means a partisan of what he described,rnhe nonetheless maintained closernfriendships on the right—with, amongrnothers, several editors of Chronicles. Inrnmy case that friendship led to his sharingrnof valuable data on the Austrian populistrnJorg Haider, on whom he reported regularlyrnin these pages in recent years.rnWithout that aid, which Don offeredrnunstintingly, I could not have completedrnthe final chapter of a book then inrnprogress.rnTo some on the populist right, Donrndid not seem sufficiently engaged, but,rnlike Max Weber, he drew a useful distinctionrnbetween scholarship and politicalrncommitment. Though at times herngave at least inklings of rightist sentiment,rnhe saw himself, for the most part,rnas a research scholar, whose bounden dutyrnit was to be dispassionate about hisrnsubject. In pursuit of that ideal, herntaught the rest of us about the prospectsrnand pitfalls of populist movements combiningrnmajoritarian and egalitarianrnrhetoric with an antimodern social vision.rnDon did not believe that these twornpopulist features were always in harmonyrnor that populism could always be countedrnon to resist leftist elites. He was rightrnin both assumptions, painful though itrnmay be for some of us to admit it.rnAt our last meeting, about a year ago,rnin a noisy cafe abutting the University ofrnMichigan, Don responded to my commentrnthat Christopher Lasch had comernaround to his view about Middle Americanrnradicals by observing that “thingsrnhave changed.” He went on to explainrnthat Middle Americans could be seducedrnwith entitlements, even thosernwho were not keen on quotas or liberalrnimmigration policies. Don made thisrnobservation without visible emotion,rnwhich was typical of the way he approachedrnhis work. Though upset by hisrnbleak premise, which he could of courserndocument, I was forced to agree. Onerncould not be angry at Don even when hernpunctured cherished illusions. An honestrnresearcher who never avoided uncomfortablernconclusions, he nonethelessrnshowed kindness as well as candor. Anyonernwho dealt with him would havernsensed this at once.rnOne suspects this fact was as obviousrnto his students at Oakland College,rnwhere he taught for decades, as it was inrnhis other professional relations. AsrnSamuel Francis, who benefited from hisrnearly work, once noted: “Only a bruterncould dislike Don Warren.” A detailedrnobituary in the New York Times on Mayrn22 lists his scholarly accomplishmentsrnand gives the upshot of his widely publicizedrnwork on Father Coughlin’s populistrncareer. Among the achievementsrnnot mentioned was that Don Warrenrncould be characterized as “nice,” as thatrnterm was traditionally applied, not as arnputdown but as a compliment intendedrnfor a considerate person. For this evenrnmore than for his diligently pursuedrnstudies, Don deserves our prayers andrnfond memories.rn—Paul GottfriedrnFATHER’S DAY has always seemed tornme a silly kind of holiday. It’s a time torngive Dad something he doesn’t need,rnlike another splashy necktie, or, what’srn8/CHRONICLESrnrnrn