helped elect ronald reagan. this class is an hour and 10 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 recall from previous lectures that republicans were

down, many thought the republican party was going the way of the wiig party. only 20% of the electorate considered themselves republicans. but 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 we usually have and the dancing that we do before class. there was a problem perhaps with copyright so we didn't want somebody suing congress and bankrupting congress. oh, congress is already bankrupt. well, anyway, we don't -- they couldn't afford the lawyers perhaps. oh, they 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 schlafly and pat schroeder congresswoman from the state of colorado. she was a feminist and pro-e.r.a. supporter. so we could turn down the lights

and we'll start the clip. >> bill zimmerman and virginia sherwood. >> 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. schlafly. that is the quotation we started the law with, equality of the rights under the law will 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? >> well, 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 they now possess. for example, the laws of every one of our 50 states requires the husband to financially support his wife and children. now, under the equal rights amendment, all these laws will be invalidated because no longer can you have any ledgetion 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 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. i think that's a basic and most fundamental right women have. then you move into 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 the equal rights amendment will positively make women subject to the draft and on an equal basis with men. again, we can refer to the same law journal article used by the proponents in congressional debate and in the state legislative hearings, and it's 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 can't even exempt mothers unless you also exempted fathers. as this article says very clearly, neither the right to privacy nor any unique physical characteristic justifies different treatment of the sexes with respect to voluntary or

involuntary service. >> well, can we talk about these for a moment? with you, congresswoman schroeder. are you in favor of knocking down the support laws and in favor of drafting women, for example? >> well, i've read the yale law journal very closely, and also i'm a lawyer and have practiced very heavily in this area. i think she is misinterpreting it and taking it out of context. let me basically say what the equal rights amendment will do, and i think almost every lawyer in the country agrees. right now there are support laws. there is no court in the country that will enforce support laws while a marriage is going on. and if you don't believe me, you can ask any woman who's had trouble with their husband supporting them. you go into court and say, my husband is not keeping me in the way i'd like them to. they say, i won't touch that. they will not step in during the marriage. instantly what ends up happening is you go to a divorce. 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 to what she's saying in that 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. they look at the total picture. they look at both people, their education, their backgrounds, how they might be employed, if they are employed, what they're doing, the ages 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 would be expected to support at least for a certain period of time. however, she has a college degree and is working, she's not going to. in less than 2% of the cases in the country right now is alimony given on a permanent basis

because of that reason. we're growing and you can't ever take one income and fully sustain two households. >> 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 tro digsal catholics as well as mormons. then we'll talk a little bit about e.r.a., what it was, phyllis schlafly and the stop e.r.a. movement, 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 that up in the next lecture. i remind you that we're going to have a guest lecturer. some of you are going to be invited to 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 1970s i think historians and students of history with a puzzle. we want to address this puzzle today. i invite you to help me explore it. and 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. in this new mood of turning inward, emotions and intuitions were celebrated rather than the rational and the intellectual. in 1976, for example, jerry ruben, a former student radical, founder of the yipys, which combined hippies and political radicals, yippies. they used to go into meetings yelling, yip, yip, yip. i don't know what it meant, i don't know that they do either. but from 1972 to 1975, as he describes it, he underwent -- and you don't need to remember these therapies -- est, ga stolt therapy, bioenergetics, rolfing, massage, jogging, health foods, thai chi.

trust your feelings, luke, was the advice given at the climactic moment of the 1977 "star wars." and young skywalker obediently shut his eyes and put his faith in the force. trust your feelings expressed the spirit of the age. i'm sure you still feel this force right during midterms and you want it with you. but, anyway, coinciding with the sense of self, however, were demands extending group rights and liberation for women.

racial minorities and homosexuals. these demands often culminated in social protests, sometimes quite violent. and in the drive for equality, conventional culture, established institutions, and customary social roles for women came under attack. yet 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 is a historian to explain this paradox in which a culture which appeared to reject traditional values concerning religion, the family, general roles and individual rights, as opposed to group rights, rejecting all of these and yet elect a candidate such as ronald reagan. today i want to pause it 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 play 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 in the grass roots level, to oppose e.r.a. and abortion while supporting legislation or constitutional amendment to allow prayer in schools. and this mobilization activated

a dishearted conservative movement and laid the foundation for reagan being elected in 1980. the grass roots campaign that emerged over these social issues showed republican party operatives that roman catholics, 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 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 liberation and group rights were extended, it was traditional women who provided the catalyst for political change from the right. progressive liberation produced an irony, the mobilization of right-wing women. if this was the age of liberation, it was equally the age of reaction. stirrings on the right mark 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 labeled "the new right." critical to the new right was its capacity to raise money for political causes through collect mailing and its emphasis on moral issues, so-called social issues. by the way, the republicans used to be at the forefront of technology and elections with obama in 2008 and the last election, the democrats outmaneuvered the republicans on social issues. central to the revival of the right in the 1970s were two issues, abortion and e.r.a. efforts to -- let's first turn to abortion, then to e.r.a. and then 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 antiabortion movement. this emergence of the feminist movement at the same time added momentum to the repeal of state law that's had restricted abortion. under the slogan "my body belongs to me," feminists staging speakouts, street theater and other demonstrations in favor of abortion, adding to the ground swell 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 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, antiabortion activists organized first on the grass roots level. during the fight over abortion in california, groups such as the right to life league and mothers outraged at the murder of innocence, momi, 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 roam chb 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 antiabortion 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 grass roots movement, and these local organizations often mirrored the unique character of its individual leaders, both -- and the movement. that is, they were leaders and foot soldiers. most of these early activists were roman catholic, though a number of the prominent female

leaders in the movement were protestant, including mildred jefferson, an african-american harvard university-trained physician. she became, in fact, 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 a national coordinating committee to provide information and material to these local organizations. but keep in mind it was the local activists, grass roots act vix, that began the movement. this was before the supreme court's decision in roe v. wade. and with that decision, which legalized and made abortion a constitutional right, american politics was transformed and a polarized the electorate and both major political parties. on the federal level opponents

of abortion in congress sought to repeal roe through it the enactment of constitutional amendments or to prevent federal funding of abortion. meanwhile, on the state level, antiabortion groups undertook efforts to limit legalized abortion through restrictive abortion regulations. by the early 19 -- by early 1976, more than 50 different constitutional amendments to ban or limit abortion had been introduced in congress. 50. and at the same time antiabortion congressional leaguers 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 battleground 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 district that's it 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, and with each decision neither side

would be satisfied. in fact, the decision seemed to activate 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 league of the republican party, 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 e.r.a., the equal rights

amendment. and i might add that she also announced that she was for legalized marijuana. later turned out that the children in the white house were smoking pot, 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. they simply didn't trust ford on

this issue. in congress, representative henry j. hyde, 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 of 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 anda sign the political winds were changing in the country. the amendment passed congress in march 1972. there had been attempts during the senate fight to amend the amendment, modify it to exclude women from the draft, to protect labor legislation that had 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. they failed. the very first state to ratify the following day was hawaii, and that was followed 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 schlafly. and i think the lesson that should be learned by both the right and the left is that individual action and grass roots activism in a democracy can matter. at least under some circumstances, if the circumstances are right. longtime republican party

activist phyllis schlafly 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 law that's 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. schlafly, though she proclaimed to be a housewife, which she was, 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 organizations for women, n.o.w., e.r.a. america, which was a large coalition group, well funded, that involved activist groups, democratic groups, feminists and some labor groups initially many labor unions opposed e.r.a. because of the protective organization, but they would be brought in under pressure by the feminists to the pro-e.r.a. fight. but at first they dismissed schlafly in the grass roots movement.

she was flagging 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 ratified e.r.a. rescinded their votes, but proponents of schlafly were now taking her -- excuse me. opponents of schlafly were now taking her seriously, and they admitted publicly that they had failed to win over the average homemaker. simply put, schlafly had outmaneuvered her opponents. and at first, as i 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, was 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 schlafly 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 catholics and mormons into the fight against e.r.a. most of these women were mothers without great political experience, but they had something going for them as organizers. first of all, as church members, they brought public speaking skills, and they were also used to converting nonbelievers. equally important, these women

brought an evangelical enthusiasm to their cause. they were evangelicals, after all. but they also had something else going for them. and perhaps we can discuss this in the q&a. these women had been involved in civic affairs, in church activities, but they knew their state legislators. legislators, mostly men, were church members or neighbors. so when they went to lobby state legislators, they knew who they were. they could say, bill, fred -- they were mostly men -- and jane maybe, you know, we worked together a long time, all i want is 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 the

campaign in contrast to the stop e.r.a. movement. they 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. schlafly 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 that conscription was still in force in this early period. and what the effectiveness of this was, wasn't just playing

upon the concerns of what's unknown, it's playing upon a sentiment 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 over 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 some of these women were quite right wing -- wanted to make the fight over the u.n. because they saw e.r.a. as kind of an extension of global power, world government.

well, obviously they 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. one is, in fact, being revealed today for the first time because it's not in my book political biography of phyllis schlafly. and this revelation is that phyllis schlafly told me in a conversation that initially stop 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. republicans share with democrats a view that abortion might keep down this problem of global population explosion, and they thought, well, fewer poor people

had children, that would mean fewer people on welfare roles. so she didn't bring up e.r.a. 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 -- the gay rights issue emerged, opponents of schlafly dismissed this idea of gay marriage as absolutely absurd. they argued in opposition to

schlafly, who believes in gay marriage? there's not going to be gay marriage. this is just phyllis schlafly using her regular hysterical techniques, playing upon the worst kinds of fears of american people, the 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 integrally 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, 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 platform and categorically declaring that abortion is wrong. but after winning a narrow victory against ford in 1976, carter now moved to placate by appointing a number of nationally visible feminists to his white house staff as well as to his administration.

and furthermore, to assure he was one of them, he actively campaigned for ratification of e.r.a. -- state representatives in key states to back the amendment. his wife roslyn did, too. i might add this caused a good deal of resentment for state legislators who were caught in fights going on in their states having the white house intervene, and they told the press they didn't like carter getting involved. or the white house getting involved. well, as e.r.a. now was -- it was clear it had been bogged down, the democratic controlled congress extended the dead line three years from 1979 to 1982.

but e.r.a. was dead. by 1980, it was clear that phyllis schlafly and the grass roots 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 mcrey which upheld restricting federal funding for abortion. 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 1980, as we've already discussed. meanwhile, the republicans were energized, witnessing the success of schlafly'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 landstanding republican causes free market economics and hard-line defense and foreign policy. these conservative operatives brought their political skills into the congressional elections, midterm 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, '78, democrat after democrat went down in 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 -- the

senator from illinois, clark clifford in new jersey, and that marked really a beginning of the decline of northeast republicans. the emergence of this pro-family movement consisting of evangelical protestants and catholics who 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 grass roots activism finding new constituencies revived the republican party. now, it should be said in way of conclusion that it was not an easy 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 -- by the way, was much like the wiig 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, revitalized republican party, that was going to dominate american politics for the next 20 years. republicans were now revived, revitalized.

they were prepared for battle. now i'm prepared for battle. we'll take a few questions from you. please challenge me. we're here at asu. we know that we have a diverse political population here. and we like to sort things out in an honest way in the classroom. please? take your time. we'll move the camera over so you get a shot of you. >> so my question to you is -- >> please identify yourself. >> i'm a senior here at asu. my question to you would be, 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 we should forget about or something to cherish and

protect? >> well, it's not a historical question. you're asking me for a political comment today. 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 that 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 principled compromise. the question is 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 wiig 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 is, do you think -- would you consider phyllis schlafly a feminist of sorts, someone who is able to bring the voice to traditional women? >> yeah.

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 they got suffrage. kind of ironically, women were very involved in the federalist party, the so-called conservative party. they were involved in the wiig party. they were involved in local affairs, the temperance movement, the anti-slavery movement. they ran for school board. they 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? >> my name is lauren. i'm a sophomore here at asu. 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 meaning to do that? >> that's a good question, too. ronald reagan came out of hollywood. he was a conservative. he was anti-communist. he was a devoted republican. i guess i'll put in a little plug for my new book "when hollywood was right," which talks about ronald reagan. most of the conservative activists in hollywood, movie stars -- and there were many, it's hard to believe, republican

movie stars and studio moguls -- they were concerned around two issues, economic, they believed in free markets, lower taxes. they were getting taxed a lot as movie stars if they were successful. and it anti-communism. that's what drove the republicans on social issues. they just weren't around in that period. and reagan came out of hollywood, you know. i mean, he worked with stars who were gay. he knew women, actresses, that had gotten abortions. so they 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 they were genuine in this -- in this -- i mean, people hadn't really seriously given deep thought -- 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 abortion on demand. there was another question. we'll turn here, since the camera -- >> my name is anthony. i'm a senior at asu. talk about the 1970s, do you think a stagnant economy and the end of the vietnam war gave rise to the rights and push iing poly that supported it? >> yeah -- i would put it a different way. i think as we have talked about in this class, the economic turmoil stag flags of the 1970s obviously hurt cart eer in 1980. 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. so i think that was going for feminism as they began -- as women began to demand equal protection and employment and protection of being allowed to have credit cards and property rights and so forth. congress actually was addressing many of the issues as was pointed out in the introductory remarks. because it was this changing economy that was going to give rise to feminism. at a time when many traditional homemakers, many women still remained at home were concerned

they were being denigrated, being a housewife was seen -- and being a mother, being as something that was kind of derogatory, really, the language that was used. i think that's what the context of the economy was. just one last thing. i do think you need -- let me just conjecture aloud that probably you need a prosperous economy to have issues -- social issues even being brought forward. you know, even though we have a weak economy right now, we are still fairly prosperous. so in other words if you're under attack and war or if you're in a deep economic depression there's probably not

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

>> well, i wasn't sure -- >> i'm wondering if that's how you see it. >> no. i would just as soon not defend myself. [ laughter ] >> you win. that was a good question. you just got a d in the class. thanks for embarrassing me. i'm just joking. i don't mind that you embarrassed me. the tensions, as i mentioned, in this coalition as it took shape in the '70s with ronald reagan was the kind of candidates you were going to put forward that would represent both points of different wings of the party. so that was the kind of tension. they weren't having sharp ideological clashes at that point. ronald reagan, i think, one of his great strengths we'll see as a politician was his remarkable

ability to bring both factions together. beth both sides were going to enter in 1980 as ronald reagan as our man. they will appeal to both sides. the tensions within the republican party are, you know, whether you should promote what you really stand for -- abortion and anti-abortion and anti-gay rights. whether that's the issue you will win over the electorate or opposition to gay marriage. but politician u. such as libertarian mind of 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 who are supporting him. not a lot. only a small percentage of the vote. he seems to be able to reconcile them. that's what's going to be needed for republican republican candidates running on the primaries or running on the national level as we approach midterms and -- we are presidential election. neverending saga. any other questions? let's get a new one. >> i'm a junior here at asu.

we know evangelicals are a strong voting bloc of conservative republican party and you mentioned that shlafley mobilized them for stop era. were evangelicals not politically active before that? were they not a coalesce voting bloc as we see them today? >> yeah. many in the south would have been evangelical christians were democrats. but many of the -- they voted for carter, as you recall from lectures in 1976. but a lot of the new women who were evangelical christians were new to politics. they just hadn't been involved as political activists. so as they may vote democratic but they hadn't been actively involved. in every political campaign you need activists to go out, make the phone calls, knock on doors and do the stuff you need to do to win a successful campaign.

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

state legislators. one of the devices that schlaffley devised was faking brand for the legislators. 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. they would still send a loaf of bread though they had voted against it saying we know you voted against it this time. we are going to work on you -- or voted for e.r.a. but next time we'll get you to vote against it. but, you know, enjoy the bread. meanwhile the pro e.r.a. side was trying to lobby. but they had a national organization for women.

continue these militant tactics. when the final vote came up in illinois to show how angry some feminists had become, a group of feminists, much to the dismay of people who were trying to work on the state legislators, the pro e.r.a., they came in to the state capital in illinois. a beautiful building. and they spilled blood. they brought in bags of pigs' blood, spilled it on the floor all over and got great media attention. if you were a state legislator in your home district of illinois, you didn't want to align yourself with these people. so, you know, they were swung over. in the end, i think what happened with e.r.a., it becomes so divisive.

the state legislators just want to get this thing over with. i mean, trying to argue about this and i think in the end they decided to just let it go. it was a no-win proposition. there were five states that rescinded the vote. it was going to be interesting constitutional argument, whether a state after having ratified the amendment could then turn around and rescind it. that never reached the courts. >> the governor actually vetoed the reversal. then the court said, no, no. you can't do that. you don't have a role in it. >> that was in the courts at that point over this. you know, just one other point before we get to that question,

miguel. when i was working on my biography of phyllis schlaffley, she gave me complete access to her files. it was kind of a privileged position. there was a folder from a florida democrat in the state legislature who opposed e.r.a. in his state. after it was defeated in florida, he came under attack from extremists. radical supporters of e.r.a. so i opened up this box in the archives. i'm your humble historian, doing mind numbing work. i opened up this box and it was

full. it was in baggies, but full of used condoms. used sanitary napkins and other female sanitary things. he had sent phyllis as an example of what kind of attack he was under. all of the pornographic pictures of, you know -- of -- well, you know, pornographic pictures, mostly gay. i asked phyllis who is pretty prim in her own way if she had seen this. she said she hadn't. but anyway, i believe it. it goes to show how these tactics, how friends influence

people. i won't make a bad joke about pornography. it's tempting. miguel had a question. >> during the 1964 elections, barry goldwater didn't want to integrate the social rerim religious side of conservatives but were phyllis and ronald reagan able to connect them? what were his thoughts on this? >> barry goldwater. >> right. what was his opinion of the joining of the social conservatives and fiscal conservatives? >> in 1964, keep in mind the social issues were important. he does talk about moral issues. in the 1964 campaign.

you have a declining culture. so he did talk about this. although his campaign actually felt that they weren't doing enough around the moral issues. and the campaign -- i don't want to go off here too much. it is in my new book. but they did produce a film talking about the decay of culture. it was rather mild actually. they had college students rioting over beer busts in florida. you know, they had a few people doing -- you know, they had disco-dancers and people doing wild twists. the twist, you know, pretty naughty stuff. then they had racial riots. when the film was first shown it

was picked up by new york columnists. he attacked it as racist. goldwater decided because they had racial riots. most of it was about riots, that is, racial riots. but goldwater decided to withdraw the film. by 1976, however, or '70s. and into the '80s, the social conservatives were an emergent force or were a force in the republican party. especially the so-called religious right. goldwater is upset by that. he wrote a book denouncing one of the -- denouncing the religious right. if you go over to the archives here at arizona state university

you can look at the correspondence about this book. so people have claimed, i think, rather absurdly that barry goldwater, you know, and even ronald reagan wouldn't find a place in the republican party today. you know, we are talking about what happened 50 years ago, 40 years ago to the republican party and issues have changed. to think that ronald reagan wanted to find a place in the republican party today, i think, is absolutely ludicrous. it's just the attempt by some, not all the opponents but some to paint the republican party as extremist. as we've discussed in this class, this has been an ongoing attack from the 1950s to today that the

republicans are extremists. you can believe they are extremists and you have a right to believe they are extremists. but this is kind of an ongoing political attack. one of the problems i will just add that goldwater confronted, he was concerned about the rise of reagan as a political force within the party. his correspondence is full of this. in the 1976 campaign, ronald reagan and goldwater are going to have a split. they stopped talking and writing to one another, over an issue, we'll see the panama canal. one of the problems goldwater faced is that he's seen that the republican party had left him behind.

he had stood up in 1964 not wanting to run, but feeling kp kp kpemed -- compelled to run. by 1976 they found a new hero in ronald reagan, who was articulate, charismattic, unified the party. he endorsed ford in the primary. he was going to support the standing president, but it really ruptured relations. but goldwater felt that, you know, for all of his work he wasn't getting the kind of respect that he did. i don't want to suggest that it was just psychological or hurt feelings on goldwater's part.

goldwater was supportive of planned parenthood. he helped found planned parenthood in phoenix. he was very pro choice. he was libertarian on gay rights. so i'm not dismissing that he didn't have genuine feelings. but like many republicans. in the 1940s, 50s and 60s, they supported abortion for various reasons. george and, as we know, george -- or we'll find out -- george w. bush, when he had been a congressman and representing senate was head of the population committee in the republican party that pushed richard nix son to push for

federal family planning and international family planning. the republican party stood strong on this issue. but roe v. wade and the fight over abortion laws and the idea of abortion on demand really brought in a polarization of american politics. one does have to wonder whether the supreme court decision really took the battle out of states and whether we would have been better off having the fight in the states and not having a court ruling that basically kind of polarized. what would have been happened in it was fought in the states? my guess is that some would and

other states wouldn't. anyway, that's how it was introduced. if i may add one more thing since i have the the podium here, it should be pointed out that abortion was not illegal in america before roe v. wade. most states had laws allowing for medical abortions. they were restrictive laws. but in order to save the life of a mother a doctor could perform an abortion. the issue of abortion really became more prominent in the 1950s because there was a measles epidemic that caused fetal deformities. there was a drug issued for pregnant woman for tranquilizing

them. that caused deformties. as that happened, the issue came. it wasn't -- abortion wasn't necessary to save the life of a mother but did the mother have a right to abort a child that might be severely deformed. so the abortion issue is going to gradually come on to the political scene in america. we have guests. do you have questions? you're politically active, i think. [ inaudible ] >> you just got an a in the class. >> can i ask your political -- are you a republican yourself? >> am i a republican? i have been accused of being a republican. >> although i bumped into a student the other day who said that there is a strong sentiment

that i'm a liberal. i'd like to spread that rumor. it would make me get along well with many of my colleagues. so anyway. these accusations, you know. that's dirty tricks to accuse me of being a republican. that's pretty bad. anyway. one last question perhaps. we'll leave on a happy note. i have been victimized by one of my students. this terrible rumor being circulated that i'm a republican. what can i do? that's the end of my career. so at least i went out with a bang. thank you very much for being here. >> have a good break. [ applause ]

>> join us each saturday at 8:00 p.m. and midnight eastern and sundays at 1:00 p.m. for classroom lectures from the country on different topics and eras of american history. lectures in history are available as podcasts. visit our website c-span.org/history/podcasts or download them from itunes. facebook has a billion people, they know your political preference, whaur sexual presence, what your dog's name is, all these sorts of things and one security analyst said, if the government had asked you directly for that sort of information, it would have taken money and would have taken lawyers and may have even taken guns to get you to cough up the information. we routinely do so on social networks. we don't think about the fact that our google searches are tracked.

and so i also write mystery books and put the white house in one. my google searches, if the fbi chose to look, would be very incriminating. i'm looking at different date rape drugs, things like that for my mysteries. and so people may sitting there with their computer thenk they are engaged in some secret activity, not knowing it's as if there were a big eyeball on the other end keeping track of things you do. >> monday on the communicators on c-span2. all weekend long, american history tv is featuring ann arbor michigan where gerald forward's presidential library is located. he attended and played football for the university of michigan. posted by our comcast table partners we visited many sites