>> host: 1953 publication of the conservative mind what was the reception? >> guest: pretty incredible more so than anyone would have expected. it came out in may of 1953 and it took about a month for it to catch on that than it cost to hire roughly 75 to 80 publications in the english-speaking world and they

have everything from the chicago trip to the new york times, london times they all reviewed it going through the summer feeling like they hadn't done it justice the first time. certainly as a young man he hoped he would have a good career but it went well beyond what he was expecting and it put his publisher out of chicag of e map as well. he was born in 1918 to the very poor family in plymouth michig michigan. from plymouth to massachusetts as a typical american story

where there've been originally in the theaters and -- puritanism than the intelligent working-class families they embraced a spiritualism. that's the kind of atmosphere he grew up in. so always books, no money, interest and the ideas and very a satiric he ended up getting a full scholarship to michigan state. he went to michigan state, graduated, got a masters degree and was drafted and didn't get out until 1946. then he went on and got his

degree from the university of scotland and wrote the conservative mind. and the reputation as i said a few moments ago exploded with the publication which was just his dissertation to think about from that point forward he was regarded as the intellectual touchstone for tha the kind of modern american conservatism best known up to the goldwater movement fizzled with the fiasco. it never fully recovered but it had a good run and was influential during that time. >> host: what are som were somee views that were revolutionary were he was deeply worried about

the rise of communism and all of these ideologies and kirk believed in the american character there was a sense with people like washington and adams that it wasn'but it wasn't to mw but to preserve the best and he thought the founders were giving us something very old and informed so he didn't think of america against hitler or stalin. he thought of as something separate but it was our duty to take them out and keep the

ideology down. even they were dehumanizing at some level. the conservative mind is truly a that. in 1953 it was prerevolutionary and he wasn't catholic at this point he would be catholic much later on. he talked about the dignity of the human person and person al-isam and the idea of community when those were not popular words and he's all those as more than equal so it wasn't a one-to-one correspondence on the american way of life.

>> host: were they accessible? >> guest: they were. he was a household name in the 50s throughout all the english-speaking world. one of my favorite stories is 1953 and went over to england and he was having it performed so kirk went up and while he was there staying at a bed and breakfast a hotel clerk asked are you doctor russell kirk, the author and he was flabbergasted anybody would know him like that and it turned out the owner of the bed and breakfast had just gotten a "time" magazine issue that was devoted to his book.

he was being interviewed throughout all of the 1950s plus he had a regular column. he also wrote short stories and fiction and a lot of people that write these stories have no idea that he's so the kirk that group of conservative mind so he had strange audiences but he was well known in the 50s and 60s. >> host: wher >> host: were they good sellers? >> guest: as you would expect they are horror.

so they are anti-daemonic that the forces this isn't just a ghost story, they are very involved and complicated. >> host: we are talking with bradley and hillsdale college and author of the book russell kirk american conservative 1953 at the yale. >> guest: from buckley. >> host: it wasn't just kirk publishing but one of the great social philosophers in his book

the quest for community which is a great. others came out that year wrote a book called the demolished m man. they created a whole and i think it gave voice. everything had been conservative liberalism or practical. all that was happening.

>> that is a great question and it's hard to answer because if it was a movement it is one of the most decentralized in american history. it wouldn't be until goldwater in 1950s and the campaign of 64. it wasn't until they unified at all. would they have the talent or the skill to do so he is purely an academic but goldwater had

the charisma and national guard so there was something about him and his book and he had that chiseled face and i think he was able to pull things together and pull together the coalition of libertarians and conservatives and anti-communists so if there was a movement it took five or six years to coalesce in the anti-political movement but then for it to become anything it becomes politicized. >> host: so william f. buckley, friends or a competitor's? >> guest: she was catholic so he could never be totally blue blood it was as much as what the

possible. of course ivy league educated he was the antithesis coming out of poverty but in all of the form of protestantism which michigan state never traveled whereas wail and money coming out of texas they had all kinds of connections so -- he knew he had to have kirk on board of the national review so he went out in the 1950s and i may not be remembering this right. they met at a bar not far from his house and it was there they formulated a.

unnumbered of the people recruited were ex- communists and he didn't want to be associated with him at all. a number of these people he couldn't trust them to mingus and he didn't want his name associated. >> host: you do describe him as a fabulous stoic. . and like modern technology. he hated the telephone and he

didn't like it when it rang. it was just for him and abominable creation and jokingly i assume that he had no problem carrying the typewriter. everywhere he typed. i had the privilege of going through the letters. there were certain technologies he loves to hate and then there were other technologies that he accepted. >> guest: stoicism falls out of greece in the time. between the fall of greece and the rise of the roman republic was a philosophy that argued

that the world is pretty much held and you have to accept even pain and suffering. there are stories where he allowed himself to syn sink andt didn't bother him at all he was going to go and all of his life he must to a bizarre extent had no fear of death and that was a very stupid attitude. i think that there was something in his personality. he generally was just very calm. his science fiction site it was

regarded as something just above -. you have to books geared towards teenagers next to pretty nasty stuff. even when the cs lewis the great christian apologist in the and e moment he started writing science fiction he lost a lot of people. a lot of these figures were becoming respectable but it was

still pretty marginal so he didn't just write science fiction. his fabulous sum he would have seen a different but for a lot of people they thought it was just something you would find in a parked drugstore. but he never would have made it at the time a mainstream media so they had to do with the second, third rate publishers and that's how they made their reputation and by the 60s science fiction has taken place.

that's purely us it wouldn't have been his childhood for example. was russell kirk accepted to the media? >> guest: you would think you wouldn't be. he didn't drive a car so that was fine but he made students drive him to the airport. they would have to drive up and bring him back. it would be about two and a half hours. that would be quite a burden plus the student would have to come back. he traveled everywhere and it was a huge part of his income so he was gone most half of the year until his health got too bad but he had a number of

positions that they offered him a tenure ship and he just said no over and over again. >> guest: i don't think there is such a thing i don't think the title is a proper title. he was one of these things we forget about conservatism because we change so much but when it rose in the 50s it was very much against the culture and the conformity and he was a deeply conservative man. his politics and views on things.

most conservatives were worried especially american males and teenagers. he comes out of that tradition. he uses the term individualism but it was this anti-conformist understanding so there was a lot of that tradition and he very much embraces through the end of his life. he carried a sword stick and he was actually pretty good at it. he thought this is what i should do.

truly a bizarre figure in the sense that not in any way, shape or form fitting into the american mold at the time. >> host: as you say he would never measured up to the stereotypes of conservatives. >> guest: i think most young conservatives want to find out what should defense be in education policy. that goes back to tour other question. it was a deeply humane understanding. you should be the best nature means for you to be. and my job as a teacher or friend, professor, my job is to bring that gift out of you.

he wants people to be themselves and that is what fits in the conservatism of the 50s. you can't imagine anyone wanting to be like him. that was part of that streak in the 50s. >> host: what would russell kirk's reaction be in 2016? >> guest: for him, a good discussion is what we are doing. it's not a soundbite or who can speak more loudly than the other person. there's a lot of people in the media.

it's one of his good friends. it would've been more of a debate and they would go to colleges and have a hour or two hour discussion and talk about ideas and work things out and the idea to decide something in a 52nd spot or before commerci commercial, it wasn't him. no matter how crazy maclachlan could be think about how crazy he had the panel, two on the left and on the right. they had this discussion into the could be fun and playful with one another but if you can imagine there was animosity and that's hard to imagine.

not to get anyone in trouble in particular, i love george will and when i saw him on the o'reilly factor a year ago and they went after each other it was disheartening to see that it's so bitter. i thought he's a better man than that but that is what he was trying so hard to fight against. i can't sit here and demonize you because i disagree. our job ha is to be that commonality. anyone can bash another person. it's the most vulgar thing possible. but to find the strength of your opponent's argument, that's the hard thing. it wasn't his nature i think to pull the best out of someone. >> host: was he an isolationist type? >> guest: he was very

suspicious about any mission abroad. he didn't think world war ii -- if you look back on tha it he thought there were possibilities that they could have been defeated without warfare. my instinct is that doesn't sound right. but he became bitter isn't the right word because that doesn't fit kirk but he was very distraught. you build up an army so you don't use it. that's the point of having the huge military, nobody messes with you. kirk had real misgivings and spent the last three years of his life arguing that the republicans were going into a fiasco that would take a

generation to get out of end of this is and where we should be going and he thought that itas anti-reagan and conservative. >> host: is his lasting impact? >> guest: body i debated whether to do this at the beginning or the end. he would either be remembered fully or forgotten there is no in between. he isn't an original. it would be preserving things and in that sense he would be fine with that if he played the role of making us remember bur burke. i thought if i started with this no one would take it seriously.

i never in my life encountered in any person i never met him physically so i didn't know him. i never encountered someone who was more charitable in his life. once they start going through his papers money never meant anything. looking through the depression n money was almost sacred, not in the false theological way that they kept it and held onto it and then spend it. for kirk is no different than having a meal i care is a good meal i better enjoy it and move on.

it was the means to an end, not the end of itself. as early as the 1950s when he finally starts coming into money, there were days he would live on a peanut butter sandwich. but when he had money he just gave it to everybody. there were immigrants writing to him saying i just arrived in america. they would just tell their situation and he would put money in the envelope and send it to them and never did he expect any of it back. his first novel was a "new york times" bestseller. it went through 17 printings. when he died he was basically broke. he wasn't a good financial manager that's clear that he'd almost given everything away. we could say that is irresponsible and in a way it was because he left his widow

and for doctors without an income but at the same time they have willingly gone along for his lifetime helping anybody so one of my favorite colleagues and closest friends in the economic department is here strictly because kirk paid for him and his family to get out of yugoslavia under the communists. thecommunists. they had a place to live. and this is my colleague now because of that. there were times he had upwards of the team cambodians or ethiopians at the same time, anybody that needed to shelter they could live with the kirk's as long as they need it until they could get on their feet. if you ask me what is the greatest legacy, that to me is incredible.