through seven revised editions sincern1953, gave to the then-nascent postwarrnright a lustrous pedigree. Here Kirkrntraces the conservative mood and principles,rnwhich he saw threatened but stillrnoperative in postwar America, back torntheir provincial English and early Americanrnsources. He demonstrates a certainrncontinuity running from John Adams,rnEdmund Burke, High Federalists, Southernrnregionalists, and other early 19thcenturyrnAnglo-American critics of bothrnequality and the modern state to laterrnspokesmen for the same critical positions.rnIt may be useful to look in this linernof succession less for more of the samernthan for a continuity of spirit, whichrnKirk convincingly defines as the Anglo-rnAmerican conservative tradition. It isrnthe author of The Conservative Mindrnwho first uncovered that tradition and allowedrnAmerican conservatives to viewrnthemselves as part of a unified and venerablernheritage.rnAmong Kirk’s other contributions, forrnwhich Thomas Fleming and 1 arernparticularly grateful, is the prominencernhe gave to conservative thinkers andrnstatesmen whom scholars might otherwisernovertook. Among these cases inrnpoint are Fitzjames Stephens, John Randolphrnof Roanoke, and William Lecky.rnKirk not only theoretically resurrectedrnneglected Anglo-American conservatives,rnbut he brought out the conservativernside of figures not often viewed asrnbeing on the right. His commentaries onrnNathaniel Hawthorne, James FenimorernCooper, and Herman Melville, all JacksonianrnDemocrats, have helped to explainrnthese literary figures in a theologicalrnlight. Because of his own interest inrnhis Calvinist forebears. Kirk looked atrnthe ways in which the idea of OriginalrnSin affected early American culture.rnAny biographer of Kirk will face therndaunting task of integrating into a singlernstudy a body of writing that would takernan entire library room to house. Thesernwritings include a magisterial biographyrnof Kirk’s friend, T.S. Eliot, a learned historyrnof the United States as seen withinrnthe Western experience. The Roots ofrnAmerican Order, and The ConservativernConstitution.rnThose eulogies that movement conservativesrnhave showered on Kirk in thernwake of his death and during a testimonialrnto him at Dearborn last October arernentirely deserved. Without Kirk thernpostwar conservatism to which I haverndevoted considerable scholarship wouldrnhave been far less respectable—andrnwithout any serious claim to a past.rnHowever, the surprise is not that NewrnYork-Washington conservatives havernpraised Kirk at the end of his life, butrnthat so comparatively little was made ofrnhim in his later years. His HeritagernFoundation lectures, while they did lendrndignity to the shop-and-till conservatismrnof the Reagan years, seemed to attract attentionrnonly when he courageously spokernout about the decadence of his movement.rnWhile older conservatives at HillsdalernCollege, the Intercollegiate StudiesrnInstitute, and Heritage continued tornprovide Russell Kirk with opportunities,rnnewcomer institutions seemed farrnmore interested in promoting DineshrnD’Souza’s collected academic horror stories.rnIlliberal Education. The Festschriftrnthat appeared in Kirk’s honor severalrndays before his death waited years forrnsubsidies. It was finally published on arnshoestring by a less-than-distinguishedrnconservative press. When the neoconservativesrnassailed Kirk in 1987 for makingrnsurprisingly strong remarks aboutrntheir involvement with the American-rnIsraeli lobby, few conservatives rose tornhis defense. Some, like William Buckley,rnoffered to mediate once Kirk hadrnatoned for his indiscretion. Makingrnbaseless charges against Kirk as an “anti-rnSemite” was obviously not consideredrnindiscreet, particularly when the namecallersrncontrolled newspapers and fortunes.rnSome paleoconservatives have beenrnheard to grumble that Dr. Kirk mightrnhave done more for “the Cause,” butrnthere was, in fact, little he or anyonerncould have done in the declining decadernof his life that would have made any differencernin the current conservative wars.rnNot even during his period of fame hadrnhe exercised political influence. His ownrnabiding interest was culture, and as herngrew older and the left-liberal ascendancyrnover America became frenetic, hisrnrole as a cultural critic grew correspondinglyrnweaker. In 1971, his biography ofrnEliot, published by Random House, hadrnbeen widely reviewed by the elite press.rnTwenty years later his books went unnoticed,rnexcept by a few conservative magazinesrnwith rather limited readership.rnRussell Kirk stood for an older culturalrnconservatism, which did not “reachrnout” to those whom Washington conservativesrnwere rushing around to pacify.rnHe did not strike or change his colors;rnnor did he whine about the lack of “indecisiveness”rnamong conservatives. Despiternhis “insensitivity” here, he and hisrnwife beggared themselves by caring forrnThird World refugees, but neither maderna political statement out of their acts ofrnChristian kindness.rnKirk’s one overshadowing fault revealedrnthe naive goodness of his character.rnHe bestowed selfless love upon arnlargely unworthy political cause, andrnthough this did not transform that cause,rnhe dramatized the disproportion betweenrnhis devotion and its object. Forrnmany of us there are lessons to bernlearned from this example, and the mostrnpalpable is the need to judge harshlyrnthose who refused to defend and evenrnlent themselves to humiliating a noblernteacher. For all these ingratitudes. Kirkrnled a fulfilling life as a husband, father,rnand as the revered mentor of thosernyouthful devotees who sojourned at hisrnhouse in Mecosta. Here this benign andrnerudite man of letters did enjoy a suitablernreward even in this transitory existencern—and a foretaste of the world torncome.rn—Paul GottfriedrnFLEET FINANCIAL GROUP. NewrnEngland’s largest bank-holding company,rnmade big news when it fired 3,000rnpeople and reduced its operating expendituresrnby $300 million. In addition,rnemployees no longer get certain smallrnperks, and even its best customers willrnpay fees that used to be waived for them.rnAnalysts chalked it up to “corporaterndownsizing,” but they didn’t point outrnwho had wielded the knife. One monthrnbefore the layoffs. Fleet was the victim ofrna racial shakedown.rnThe villain is self-described “urbanrnterrorist” Bruce Marks, although “midgetrnmugger” might be a better moniker.rnThe very-short Marks grew up in Scarsdale,rnNew York, got his MBA from NewrnYork University, and went to work for thernNew York Federal Reserve Bank evaluatingrnbank-merger applications. It wasn’trnan honest living, but it beat his laterrnand extremely lucrative “communityrnactivism.” Thanks to his four-yearrncampaign against Fleet, Marks’s UnionrnNeighborhood Assistance Corporationrnis today $140 million richer.rnMarks began shaking his little fist atrnFleet when it was planning to buy thernfailed Bank of New England. He knewrnfrom his tenure at the Fed that thernAUGUST 1994/5rnrnrn