your question for author christina hoff somers live for three years. looking ahead to the new year on in depth, join radio talk show host mark levin in depth. first sunday of every month on c-span 2. each week, american history tv sits in on a lecture with one of the nation's college professors. you can watch the classes here every saturday at 8:00 p.m. and midnight eastern and sunday at 1:00 p.m. arizona state university professor donald chritchlow discussing 1970s republican revival. the gop brand was weakened to the point where some political observers wondereded if the party would survive. but by the end of the decade, spurred on by phyllis schlaffley, a new coalition made up of conservatives and helped

elect ronald reagan. this class is an hour and ten minutes. >> today we're going to continue our saga through conservatism and the republican party. and specifically what we're going to look at today is the revival of the republican party after the debacle of the nixon administration and watergate. you'll recall from previous lectures that republicans were down. many thought the republican party was going the way of the whig party. only 20% of the electorate considered themselves republicans. within the next five years the republican party was going to revive, and ronald reagan was going to be elected. so we'll begin today's class with a video clip.

unfortunately we're not going to have the music that we usually have and the dancing that we do [ laughter ] >> before class. there was a problem with copyright and we didn't want congress being bankrupted. congress is already bankrupt. anyway the couldn't afford the lawyers perhaps. the do have a lot of lawyers. anyway, let's get on with the clip. what we're going to see today is a debate by phyllis schlafley who headed the stop e.r.a. movement and a congresswoman from the state of colorado, a feminist and a proe.r.a. supporter. we could turn down the lights and we'll start the clip.

>> abc news correspondent virginia sherwood. >> well, i'd like to start first of all, and i can direct this at both of you but i think mainly it will probably be for you, mrs. sclafley. that is the quotation we started the show with. equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the united states or by any state on account of sex. now, you are with stop e.r.a. why are you against this? >> the language of the amendment i think shows why we didn't find out what was the matter with it until we got well into this constitutional debate. most people thought it meant equal pay for equal work. but that's now already guaranteed by the equal employment opportunity act of 1972. but we have found that the equal rights amendment will take away from women some of the most important rights that the now possess. for example, the laws of every one of our 50 states require the

husband to financially support his wife and children. now, under the equal rights amendment, all these laws would be invalidated. because no longer can you have any legislation which imposes an obligation on one sex that it does not impose on another. you don't have to take my word for it. the principal scholarship used by the proponents is this article in the yale law journal by professor emerson where he says clearly that after the equal rights amendment is ratified, the courts would have to strike down nonsupport laws which impose the duty of support on men only. now, this takes away from the wife and mother her legal right to be a full-time wife and mother and to bring up her baby in her own home. and i think that's a basic and most fundamental right women have. then you move in the second area, which is the area of the draft. of course, as you know, women are not subject to the draft like men are today. there's no dispute about the

fact that equal rights amendment will positively make women subject to the draft and on an equal basis with men. and again, we can refer to the same law journal article use the by the proponents in congressional debates and in state legislative hearings and spelled out in page after page of how women will have to carry the same 40 to 50-pound packs, women will be sent into combat on an equal basis with men. you couldn't even exempt mothers unless you also exempted fathers. and as this article says very clearly, neither the right to privacy nor any characteristic just fight different treatment of the sexes with respect to voluntary or involuntary service. >> can we talk about these two points with you, congresswoman schroeder? are you in favor of knocking down the support laws an in favor of drafting women, for example? >> well, i've read the yale law george very closely. and also i'm a lawyer and have

practiced very heavily in this area. i think she's misinterpreting it and taking it out of context. let me basically say what the equal rights amendment will do. and i think almost everyone in the country agrees. right now there are support laws, but there's no court in the country that will enforce support laws while the marmg is going on. if you don't believe me you can ask anyone who has had trouble with their husband supporting them and you go into court and say my husband is not taking care of me and they'll say we don't touch that, lady. once the marriage is going along the will never step in to help marriage. if it's unfortunate enough that it comes to that kind of situation, the courts won't step in and i think understandably so. sometimes it's regrettable. but if the do step in, what instantly happens is you go to a divorce. so if a woman is married to a man who refuses to help support her, she's really forced to go to work, anyway, or seek a divorce situation. now, if you want to talk about

the support laws after the marriage is broken down, then there is some justification what you're saying. it will not just be the man's role. but most states have moved to that, anyway. like i live in a state where that's happened. and the look at the total picture. the look at both people's education, their backgrounds, how the might be employed, if they are employed what they're doing, the age of the children, the whole picture. >> is that considered ability to support? >> ability to support by both parties. and if there are young children in the family, and the mother is staying home, then the father will be expected to support at least for a certain period of time. however if she has a college degree and she's working, she's not going to. as you probably know in less than 2% of the cases in the country right now [ inaudible ] because of that reason we're growing. you can't ever take one income and fully sustain two households.

>> i think you got a sense of -- lights, please? >> i think you got a sense of the debate. it turned out to be somewhat legalistic. but it was also political. and the debate over e.r.a. and abortion was going to be a sign of the times were changing. so today we're going to talk about how e.r.a. and abortion revived the right. we're going to talk about the political consequences of this debate in the 1970s in that the republicans were now going to be able to bring in a new constituency to their party, evangelical protestants and traditional catholics as well as mormons. and then we'll talk a little bit about e.r.a., what it was, phyllis schlafley and the stop

e.r.a. movement and then turn to presidential politics with ford and carter and how the importance of the social issues, and then we'll mention reagan just a bit. we'll pick up that in the next lecture. i remind you that we're going to have a guest lecturer and somebody you're going to be invited for dinner with bob collins, who's written a very fine book on ronald reagan, which you should be reading in this class. the decade of the 1970s in america presents i think historians and students of history with a puzzle. we want to address this puzzle today. and i invite you to help me explore it. the puzzle is this.

social commentators have depicted, and i think accurately, this period, this decade in american history, when americans turned inward becoming kind of narcissistic, obsessed with their physical and mental well-being, given to new diets, physical fitness, faddish therapies, and spiritualism. and in this new mood of turning inward, emotions and intuitions were celebrated rather than the rational and the intellectual. running in 1976, for example, jerry reuben, a former student radical, founder of the yippies which was combined hippies and political radicals, yippies, the used to go into meetings yelling "yip yip yip" i don't know what it meant. i don't know that the did, either. but from 1972 to 1975, as he describes it, he underwent --

and you don't need to remember these therapies, but he underwent e.s.t., gestalt therapy, bioenergetics, rolfing, massage, jogging, health foods, tai chi, and eselen. trust your feelings, luke, was the advice given the a the climactic moments of the 1977 "star wars" and young sky walker obediently shut his eyes and put his faith in the force. trust your feelings as journalist david fromme expressed the spirit of the age. i'm sure you still feel this force right during mid terms and you want it with you. but anyway -- [ laughter ] >> coinciding with a sense of self, however, were demands extending group rights and liberation for women.

racial miracial mine ti s /* /- minorities and homosexuals. conventional culture, established institutions and cut tomorrowa customary roles for women came under attack. in the midst of turning inward and the extension of group rights, american politics shifted to the right, culminating in the election of ronald reagan an avowed conservative in 1980. how as a historian, how are we to explain this paradox in which a culture which appeared to reject traditional values concerning religion, the family, gender roles and individual rights as opposed to group rights, rejecting all these, and yet elect a candidate such as

ronald reagan? today i want to posit and argue and argue, and you can respond, the key social issues, including abortion, the equal rights amendment, e.r.a., and prayer in school played an integral role in reagan's election and the rightward shift in american politics. and moreover, it was these traditional issues or these social issues that mobilized traditional women to become involved in politics on the grassroots level. to oppose e.r.a. and abortion while supporting legislation or constitutional amendment to allow prayer in schools. and this mobilization activated a disheartened conservative

movement and laid the foundation for reagan being elected in 1980. the grassroots campaign that emerged over the social issues showed republican party operatives that roman catholic licks, traditionally aligned with the democratic party, and nonaligned evangelical christians, could be won over to the grand old party, the republican party, the gop. this mobilization of pro-life and the anti--feminist right created what later became known as the gender gap. that is, the difference in voting patterns between white men and women. but the real gender gap was not between men and women but between single white women who tended to vote democratic and white men and white married women who tended to vote republican.

thus rests another paradox within the decade of liberation, if you will, a paradox within a paradox. while the culture appeared to accentuate personal liberation and group rights were extended to ethnic minorities and women, it was traditional women who provided the catalyst of change to the right. traditional liberation produced an irony. the mobilization of right wing women. this was the age of liberation, it was equally the age of reaction. stirrings on the right marked the beginnings of the revival of the right. the mobilization of female conservative activists proved critical in this conservative resurgence. this resuscitation of the conservative movement and the

republican party came to be labelled the new right. critical to the new right was its capacity to raise money for political causes through direct mailing and emphasis on moral issues, the so-called social issues. and by the way, the republicans used to be at the forefront of technology and elections. and with obama in 2008 and the last election, the democrats have outmaneuvered the republicans on social issues. central to the revival of the right in the 1970s were two issues, abortion and e.r.a. let's first turn to abortion and e.r.a. and back to presidential politics. efforts to liberalize abortion laws began on the state level in

the late 1960s. which in turn stimulated the rise of the anti-abortion movement. this emergence of the feminist movement at the same time added momentum to the repeal of state laws that had restricted abortion. under the slogan "my body belongs to me" feminists began staging speak outs, street theater and other demonstrations in favor of abortion, adding to the groundswell for the repeal of restrictive abortion laws. hawaii became the first state to repeal its restrictive law, thereby permitting hospital abortions for nonviable fetuses. new york followed with legislation that removed all restrictions on abortion

performed in the first 24 weeks of pregnancy. it was a quite liberal abortion law. and who signed it? our friend governor nelson rockefeller in 1970, which gave new york the most liberal abortion law in the nation. now, in opposition to this movement to liberalize abortion laws, anti-abortion activists organized first on the grassroots level. during fight over abortion in california, groups such as the right to life league and mothers outraged at the murder of inknow cents, get is, mommy? organized the lobby against the liberalized abortion law bill that had been introduced in the california legislature. and although under heavy pressure from these local activists as well as the roman

catholic church hierarchy, governor ronald reagan signed the act into law in 1967. it was a quite liberal act. the hierarchy of the catholic church supported in principle the anti-abortion movement as it emerged in the late 1960s. but the impetus for this movement came from local activists who organized on the local level without official church support. in other words, it was a grassroots movement. and these local organizations often mirrored the unique character of its individual leaders, and the movement, that is the were leaders and foot soldiers. most of these early activists were roman catholic, although a number of the prominent female leaders in the movement were protestants, including midding

mildred jefferson who became head of the national organization. in mid 1971, the national right to life committee funded by the national conference of catholic bishops, was established as the national coordinating committee to provide information and material to these local organizations. but keep in mind it was the local activists, grassroots activism, that began the movement. this was before the supreme court's decision in roev. wade. with that decision which legalized and made abortion a constitutional right, american politics was transformed and it polarized the electorate in both major political parties. on the federal level, opponents

of abortion in congress sought to repeal roe through the enactment of constitutional amendments or to prevent federal funding of abortion. meanwhile on the state level, anti-abortion groups undertook efforts to limit legalized abortion through restrictive abortion regulations. by the early -- by early 1976, more than 50 different constitutional amendments to ban or limit abortion have been introduced in congress. 50. and at the same time, anti-abortion congressional leaders sought to withdraw federal funding for abortions through the medicaid program unless operations were deemed medically necessary. and while the battles raged in congress, fights on the state level proved even more intense.

38 states by 1990 had adopted regulations restricting abortion. and as a result, each state became a battle ground between pro-abortion and anti-abortion activists for the hearts and minds of the electorate and their state legislators. anti-abortion activists, usually women, often won in the political arena by drawing support from districts that were heavily catholic. and at the same time, inevitable consequence was that the courts became centers of political struggle. and there were in these years there were innumerable court decisions the and with each decision, each decision, neither side would be satisfied. in fact, the decisions seemed to

aggravate both sides. abortion at the same time was intensified divisions within the republican party, became a political issue dividing the two political parties. the anti-abortion wing of the republican party when george -- excuse me, when gerald ford came into office following nixon's resignation simply believed that ford could not be trusted on the abortion issue. and any difficulties ford had were only aggravated when his wife, betty ford, announced her public support of abortion by telling the press that she would advise her daughter to have an abortion if it was necessary. she also announced her support for the equal rights amendment. and i might add that she also announced that she was for legalized marijuana, later

turned out that the kids, their children in the white house, were smoking pot in the white house. so i guess she did favor the legalization of it. and to make matters worse, ford's vice president, nelson rockefeller, had signed the bill legalizing abortion when he was governor of new york. the simply didn't trust ford on this issue. and congress representative henry j. hyde, a republican from illinois, successfully placed a rider on an appropriations bill banning federal aid for abortions. well, the abortion fight was going on, meanwhile there was a fight over e.r.a., the equal rights amendment, which had passed congress by a landslide with both republican and democratic support.

congress in passing the measure in the early 70s set a deadline until 1979 for the states to ratify the amendment, so after having passed the act it was taken to the states as is the constitutional process at least one way of having a constitutional amendment, to have it ratified by the state legislators. now, the amendment simply stated as pat schroeder said in the clip, equal rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by congress by the united states or by any state on account of sex. that's all it said. and the congress shall have the power to enforce provisions of this article. it was a pretty simple amendment. sounded pretty innocuous. but this simple amendment,

innocuous as it sounded, marked a turning point in the revival of the right and a sign the political winds were changing in the country. the amendment passed congress in march 1972. there have been attempts during the senate fight to amend the amendment, modify it, to exclude women from the draft, to protect labor legislation, that protected women, workers in the workplace passed in the 19 -- at the turn of the century and to protect marital rights and to exclude women from combat and so forth. the failed. the very first state to ratify the following day was hawaii. that was followed by a few days

later by a sweep of the states, delaware, nebraska, new hampshire, idaho and iowa. by 1973, 24 states had ratified e.r.a. by 1973, however, by late '73, e.r.a. proponents had lost control of the ratification process. how? it was extraordinary. and here we see how a single activist can affect history. in this case it was phyllis schlafley. i think the lesson that should be learned by both the right and the left is that individual action and grassroots activism in a democracy can matter, at least under some circumstances if the circumstances are right. long-time republican party activists, phyllis schlafley

started a movement called stop e.r.a. declaring that e.r.a. meant the drafting of women into the military -- remember america was just emerging from the vietnam war. she also argued that it would take away statutory rights of wives and mothers. it would federalize laws that were perceived as the proper jurisdiction of states and would rescind or overturn previous labor legislation protecting women. and the stop e.r.a. movement spread like wildfire among traditional women. now, schlafley, although she proclaimed to be a housewife, which she was, but she also came into the e.r.a. fight as an experienced organizer with an extensive network of republican women supporters throughout the country. and when she announced that she

was entering the fight, few political observers, especially her opponents, believed the chances for defeating e.r.a. stood much of a chance. in fact, leaders of national organization for women, n.o.w., activist groups, democratic groups, feminists and some labor groups initially many labor unions opposed e.r.a. because of the protective organization but the would be brought in under pressure by the feminists to the pro-e.r.a. fight. but first the dismissed schlafley and the grassroots movement. she was fighting windmills. by 1977, a total of 35 states had ratified e.r.a.

there were only three more states that were needed to gain the necessary ratification. and at this point, e.r.a. came to an abrupt halt. meanwhile, five states that had passed ratified e.r.a. rescinded their votes. but proponents of schlafley were now taking her -- excuse me, opponents of schlafley were now taking her seriously. and the admitted publicly that the had failed to win over the average homemaker. simply put, schlafley had outmaneuvered her opponents. and at first as i've already mentioned she drew support from republican women across the country. but as the movement began to gain strength, she very effectively, she and her organization, were able to bring

average women who had not been previously involved in the political arena into this arena over the fight of e.r.a. and then schlafley and her organization tapped into a new constituency, and this was an important constituency for the republican party, it turns out. that is, she was able to involve evangelical christians and roman catholic liccatholics and more s into the fight against e.r.a. most of these women were mothers without political experience but the had something going for them as organizers. first of all, as church members the brought public speaking skills, and the were also used to converting unbelievers. equally important, these women brought an evangelical enthusiasm to their cause.

the were evangelicals after all. but the also had something else going for them. and perhaps we could discuss this in the q&a. these women had been involved in civic affairs and church activities, but the knew their state legislators. the legislators, mostly men, were church members or neighbors. so when the went to lobby the state legislators, the knew who the were. the could say, bill, fred, the were mostly men, and jane, maybe, we worked together a long time. all i do is want your vote on this. we'll talk more about this, i think, in q&a about how the pro-e.r.a. side was handling its campaign in contrast to the stop e.r.a. movement.

the also had something else going for them. and that is an argument that simply came down to we don't know what the consequences of e.r.a. are going to be. it's a simple amendment, but it's going to have to be interpreted by the courts and the state legislators. what does this mean? and it wasn't clear. schlafley and the anti--e.r.a. activists warned that e.r.a. might be interpreted to mean abortion and gay marriage. abortion on demand. it might mean depriving women of alimony and child support. and the courts might rule, she warned, conscription of women into the military. keep in mind conscription was still enforced during this early period. the effectiveness of this wasn't just playing upon the concerns

of what's unknown, but playing upon a sentiment that at that point that we can't trust the courts to rule. it did something else. under the slogan of stop e.r.a., she was able to bring in different constituent groups, different interests, who would oppose e.r.a. for a number of reasons. some women might oppose the military draft. some women might be concerned of losing marital rights. some women might be concerned about abortion. and she brought them together under a single slogan "stop e.r.a." in fact, by the way, when she first entered into this debate many of the women -- keep in mind that some of these women were quite right wing -- the wanted to make the fight over the u.n. because the saw e.r.a. as kind of an extension of

global power, world government. well, obviously the were arguing against world government. that wasn't going to be a very effective campaign. i want to point out two other things that i think are worth noting that aren't often found in the textbooks. and one is in fact being revealed today for the first time. because it's not in my book "political biography of phyllis schlafley." and this revelation is that phyllis schlafley told me in an interview, well, really a conversation, the initially stopped e.r.a. did not raise the abortion issue because some of the initial opponents of e.r.a. were pro-choice. as were many conservatives and republicans at the time. ing republicans shared with democrats a view that abortion

might keep down this problem of global population explosion, and the thought, well, fewer poor people having children, that would mean fewer people on welfare rolls. she didn't bring up abortion at first. it would come up. and the second point is that the issue of gay marriage was not a major focus of the stop e.r.a. movement at first. it only came later in the e.r.a. fight when groups such as national organization for women began to promote gay rights. yet even in the late 1970s as this gay rights issue emerged, opponents of schlafley's opponents dismissed this idea of gay marriage as absolutely absurd. the argued in opposition to

schlafley who believes in gay marriage. there's nothing going to be gay marriage. this is just phyllis schlafleyiousing h using her re techniques playing upon the worst fears of american people, homophobia and so forth. nobody believed that gay marriage was really a serious proposal. let's turn to abortion. the abortion issue as it was heating up became intricately tied to e.r.a. as the struggle took shape. as the presidential campaign opened in 1976, both ford and the democratic party presidential nominee, jimmy carter, who we've talked about already, wanted to treat abortion gingerly. i mean, it was a no-win issue

for them. but the abortion issue proved equally divisive for the democrats. at the convention, at the democratic convention, carter clashed with feminists over the abortion plank. finally reaching a compromise that declared the party's opposition to any attempt to overturn legalized abortion through roe. nonetheless, even with this compromise plank, carter disavowed the plank, the platform, and categorically declaring that abortion is wrong. but after winning a narrow victory against ford in 1976, carter now moved to placate feminists by appointing a number of nationally visible feminists to his white house staff as well as to his administration.

and furthermore, to assure that he was one of them, he actively campaigned for ratification of e.r.a., talking to state representatives in key states to back the amendment. his wife rosalind did, too. i might add this cause add good deal of resentment for state legislators who were caught in this big fight going on in their states having the white house intervene. and the told the press the didn't like carter getting involved or the white house getting involved. well, as e.r.a. now was -- it was clear that it had been bogged down, the democratic-controlled congress extended the deadline three years from 1979 to 1982. but e.r.a. was dead. by 1980, it was clear that phyllis schlafley and the grassroots right had won, a

major political success. carter found himself in difficulty with the feminists when he endorsed the supreme court decision in 1987, harris v. mcgray, which had upheld restricting federal funding for abortions. and when he came out publicly in support of this decision, the feminists revolted within his administration he was denounced by many of the feminists. many of them left the administration and resigned. and that was going to hurt him in the 19 -- in 1980 as we've already discussed. meanwhile, the republicans were energized. witnessing the success of schlafley's ability to mobilize evangelical christians in the fight against e.r.a., republican activists believed that this

vote, that is the evangelical christian vote, and the catholic vote, could be harnessed to support the party by tying social issues such as school choice, abortion, prayer in schools, to the long-standing republican causes, free market economics and hard line defense and foreign policy. these conservative operatives brought their political skills into the congressional elections, mid-term elections of '78 by employing the abortion issue as a wedge that separated liberal democratic congressional representatives from their more socially minded constituents. and in that election in '78, democrat after democrat went down into defeat. and similarly it should be added, liberal republicans who had waffled on the abortion

issue or who had supported e.r.a. joined the list of those that were defeated, includes charles percy, the senator from illinois, clark clifford in new jersey. and that marked really the beginning of the decline of northeast republicans. the emergence of this pro-family movement consisting of evangelical protestants and catholics who had had allegiance to the democratic party, plus revitalized conservatives in the republican party, now set the stage for the 1980 election, which we'll talk about in our next lecture. and what was important in the entire fight was that grassroots activism, finding a new constituencies, revived the republican party. now, it should be said in way of

conclusion thought was an uneasy coalition as republicans are discovering today. between the social issue-minded conservatives who continue to battle abortion and gay marriage, and the economic conservatives, free market conservatives in the republican party. in that way, this uneasy coalition, by the way, was much like the whig party in the 1840s which had similar tensions. we'll save that for another history class. but this coalition that was put together, this alliance, would hold -- would hold power within the republican party a revitalized republican party that was going to dominate american politics for the next 20 years. republicans were now revived,

revitalized, the were prepared for battle, and now i'm prepared for battle. we'll take a few questions from you. please challenge me. we're here at a.s.u. we know we have a diverse political population here. and we like to sort things out in an honest way in the classroom. so please. take your time. we'll move the camera over so the can get a shot of you. >> okay. so my question to you is -- >> please identify yourself. >> carlos safaro, i'm a senior here at a.s.u. my question to you would be that after hearing all this drummed up support for the evangelicals and catholics, do you think that that now is hurting the party and that's something that we should forget about or something to cherish and protect?

>> it's not a historical question. you're asking me for political comment today. i think -- i think it's fair enough to say that there's a tension within the republican party between these two wings. but i will add to this, i think economics these days is going to be the critical issue. but at the same time, republicans still need to keep those social conservatives within the republican party, especially in the south. and i think that's going to be critical. and the nature of politics, as i've said, again and again, is principle compromise. the question's going to be in the end whether republicans are going to want to fight among themselves to the effect of destroying themselves while the

democrats get elected. so that's what the party confronts today. let's hope it doesn't go the way the whig party goes, otherwise we'll only have a one-party system, the democratic party. i do believe in a two-party system. >> yes, in the back. >> my name is miguel. i'm a junior. my question was, do you think -- would you consider phyllis schlafley a feminist of sorts, someone who was able to bring the voice to traditional women? >> yes. i mean, that's an excellent question, i think. is she a feminist? well, some people have portrayed her this way. i don't think that's an accurate characterization, though. because what it neglects is that women, conservative women, have been long involved in politics

even in civic affairs even before the got suffrage. kind of ironically, women were very involved in the federalist party, the so-called conservative party. the were involved in the whig party. the were involved in local affairs, the temperance movement, the anti-slavery movement. the ran for school board. the were involved in local issues. so this idea that women weren't involved in politics until we had gloria steinem who we talked about is just a mischaracterization of history. so i mean, conservative women were involved in politics. in fact, greatly so. you don't need to be a feminist to be involved in politics. yes. >> hi. so my name is lauren. i'm a sophomore here at a.s.u. my question is, you brought up reagan and as he was the

governor of california he signed a rather liberal abortion law. did he change his views on abortion? or what was his like meaning to do that? >> that's a good question, too. ronald reagan came out of hollywood. he was a conservative. he was an anti-communist. he was a devoted republican. and i guess i'll put in a little plug for my new book "when hollywood was right" which talks about ronald reagan the most of the conservative activists in hollywood, movie stars -- there were many, it's hard to believe, many republican movie stars and studio moguls -- the were concerned around two issues, economic -- the believed in free markets, lower taxes. the were getting taxed a lot as

movie stars if the were successful. and anti-communism. and that's what drove the republicans on social issues. the just weren't around in that period. and reagan came out of hollywood. i mean, he worked with stars who were gay. he knew women actresses that had gotten abortions. so the weren't concerned about the social issues. and probably he hadn't really seriously thought about the social issues when this abortion law came up before him. he did change his views on abortion. and i think the were genuine in this. i mean, people hadn't really seriously given deep thought to the abortion issue. so i think it was genuine. but let's be honest, too. it was going to be good politics in the republican party to stand

against -- stand against abortion on demand. there was another question. we'll turn here since the camera's -- >> my name is anthony. i'm a senior at a.s.u. talking about the 1970s, do you think that a stagnant economy and the end of the vietnam war gave rise to all this concern over social and individual rights and pushing policy that's for that? >> yeah. i would put it a different way. i think as we've talked about in this class, the economic turmoil stagflation of the 1970s obviously hurt carter in 1980. but do i think that -- so i would put it slightly different i do think that a very

prosperous and growing economy had allowed many women to enter into the workforce. and so i think that was going to give rise to create a climate for fell feminism as women began to demand equal protection in employment, protection of being allowed to have credit cards and property rights and so forth. congress actually was addressing many of these issues as phyllis schlafley pointed out in her introductory marks. but it was this changing economy that was going to give rise to feminism at a time when many traditional homemakers, women still remained at home, were

concerned that the were being denigrated. being a housewife and being a mother was seen as something that was kind of derogatory, really, the language that was used. so i think that's what the context of the economy was. but just one last thing. i do think you need -- well, let me just conjecture aaloud that probably you need a prosperous economy to have the social issues even being brought forward. even though we have a weak economy right now, we're still fairly prosperous. so in other words, if you're under attack in war or if you're in a deep economic depression,

there's probably not going to be a lot of debate over homosexual rights and within the larger public. i'm not sure about that, but let's hope we don't have to face nuclear war or severe or worsening economic depression to discover whether i'm right or not. so there was a question over here. >> my name is brad. so you said towards the end of your lecture that the republican party started to have some divisions between the socially conservative and the fiscal conservative. but it seems to me like the division really then and still now is more between the socially conservative and the libertarians, the more not -- maybe the agree more on fiscal issues, spending, taxes and things of that nature, but more disagree on social issues where the libertarians may be more laissez-faire when it comes to things like abortion, drug use, gay marriage. care to defend yourself? >> well, i wasn't sure --

>> i mean, is that kind of how you see it? >> no. i'd just as soon not defend myself [ laughter ] >> yeah. you win. that was a good question. you just got a d in the class, but -- [ laughter ] >> thanks for embarrassing me. no. i'm just joking. i don't find that you embarrass me. i think the tensions as i mentioned in this kind of coalition as it took shape in the 70s with ronald reagan was kind of candidates you were going to put forward that were going to represent both planks of different wings of the party. and so that was the kind of tension. the weren't having sharp ideological clashes at that point. and ronald reagan, i think one of his great strengths as we're going to see as a politician was

his remarkable ability to bring both factions together. i mean, both sides were going to enter in 1980 with ronald reagan as our man. so you need adept politicians that are going to be able to appeal to both sides. i think the tensions within the republican party are -- whether you should promote as kind of your what you really stand for, abortion and anti-abortion and anti-gay rights, whether that's the prominent issue that you're going to win over the electorate or opposition to gay marriage. but politicians such as the libertarian-minded ron paul,

basically is anti-abortion. so he's very economic free market, but also stands against abortion. so you have a lot of social conservatives >> just wait a moment. >> i'm a junior here at a.s.u. we know that evangelicals a

fairly strong voting bloc of the conservative republican party. you mentioned that schlafley was first able to mobilize them for stop e.r.a. were evangelicals not politically active before that a coalesced voting bloc as we think of them today? >> yes. many in the south would have been evangelical christians were democrats. but many of the -- and the had voted for carter as you recall from lectures in 1977. but a lot of these new women who were evangelical christians were new to politics. the just hadn't been involved as political activists. so as voters the might vote democratic, but the hadn't been actively involved. and in every political campaign you need activists to go out, make the phone calls, knock on doors and do all that stuff that you need to do to win a

successful campaign. one thing i did want to -- i mentioned in the lecture and perhaps we could -- well, we have one other question. but i do want to mention and s lest we forget, one of the things that happened in this fight is that the pro-e.r.a. side base you cannily saw this movement as a -- saw their movement as a civil rights movement. and the organized accordingly. the followed the model of 1960s civil rights movement. the had mass demonstrations. the shouted at legislators. the denounced them for not -- for being sexist and so forth. meanwhile, the pro-e.r.a. people, the went in and lobbied, the did so politely to their

state legislators. one of the devices that schlafley devised was baking bread for the legislators. and so even when state legislators refused to ratify the amendment, it kept coming up again and again in a number of these states every year. the would still send a loaf of bread even though the had voted against it saying we know you voted against it this time. we're going to work on you to -- or the voted for e.r.a. but next time we're going to get you to vote against it. but you know, enjoy the bread. meanwhile, the pro-e.r.a. side was trying to lobby but the had a national organization for women continue these kind of

militant tactics. and when the final vote came up in illinois just to show how angry some feminists had become, the group of feminists, much to the dismay of people that were trying to work on the state legislators, the pro-e.r.a., the came into the state capitol in illinois, a beautiful building, and the spilled blood -- the brought in bags of pig's blood, spilled it on the floor all over.