Kirk was aiming it at those who put economic value as the highest good, the only ‘Good’ to consider. Materialists of both camps, basically libertarians and Rand fans on the Right and Marxists on the Left. It’s a criticism that Solzhenitsyn would also make some years later in his Harvard speech.
For Kirk, western conservative thought has Christian roots and has to build upon it. “The lamp of experience guides our feet”, to paraphrase Patrick Henry, who himself was paraphrasing the Bible.
When Russell Kirk and Bill Buckley were putting together National Review and the postwar conservative movement it was a fusion of libertarian and traditional elements. Kirk wasn’t enthusiastic about the libertarian/Randian contribution to it all.
I wouldn't say I'm enthusiastic about it either but I appreciate its explanatory and predictive power.
We're all economic beings but we don't all share the same morality - yet the society continues to function.
Would it function better if everyone adopted Kirk's view of right and wrong? Perhaps, but that's not happening.
What's happening, in general, is people living their lives guided by their economic self interest.
As you can probably tell I'm more interested in observing how things work than in philosophy.