Customer Reviews

Phyllis Schlafly and Grassroots Conservatism: A Woman's Crusade (Politics and Society in Twentieth Century America)

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Donald T. Critchlow, the ever-prolific professor of policy studies has performed a daunting task. In this book, he wrote a critical but balanced biography of Phyllis Schlafly.

Schlafly is the female new right activist who claims sole responsibility for defeating the Equal Rights Amendment in 1982. Previous biographies about her were blatantly partisan projects because their authors either attacked or fawned over their subject. The long-time far right activist engenders strong feelings among people familiar with her work; you either love or hate her.

Phyllis Schlafly first appeared in national politics in 1964. That year, she wrote `A choice: Not an echo' which tried to explain why Goldwater was the `sensible' choice. Yet, because Johnson then-rode public sympathy over the Kennedy assassination, he won a landslide and she temporarily receded from public view. After fallout with the National Federation of Republican Women, she formed her own women's organization, the Eagle Forum.

The Eagle Forum's veritable heyday came in the late 1970's/early 1980's when Schlafly came back onto the national stage. She became the New Right's favorite speaker against feminism/`Women's Lib'. Although Schlafly herself was a Harvard-trained lawyer and accomplished political activist, she instead emphasized that she was `just a housewife' who genuinely enjoyed mothering six kids. Schlafly consequently allowed the male conservatives to oppose ERA ratification efforts without themselves appearing sexist; `They' also supported women participating in politics.

This woman speaking out against women's liberation also made for effective media coverage because it exposed political divisions among women themselves. The women who joined anti-ERA ratification efforts were older, more religious and had less formal education than their pro-ERA counterparts. Viewing homemaking as their identity, `pro family' women felt that the ERA ultimately called their own self-worth into question. Because they were so content with their homemaking role they did not want to concede that the same role was fact limiting for other women who wanted something else/more and freedom to pursue their freedoms. Having strictly defined social and legal limits thus gave ERA opponents the illusion of security even if the world did not always run as smoothly.

Schlafly ironically has experienced her own sex discrimination. In spite of her best efforts, Ronald Reagan did not appoint her Secretary of Defense. She also has failed to get herself elected to public office. Despite MANY attempts made over the past 30 years---the `giant citizen base' which she always claims to speak on behalf of ultimately never transformed into electoral votes. These failures alternately prevent and save Schlafly from being held accountable by the `taxpayers'. She would not be able to function in an environment which demands a certain degree of party and/or ideological bipartisanship.

Schlafly's positions for creationism, one-size-fits all reading instruction, and opposition to vaccines are noticeably downplayed by many other conservatives. Many other conservatives know that those areas do not deliver enough voters in order for them to win an election. Because most people continue to support the `liberal' position in these areas, Schlafly's influence ironically is restricted to certain `women's issues'. For somebody who considers herself an `honorary male' such political limits must be the ultimate irony.

Critchlow notes that she continues to control the Eagle Forum, despite the token mentoring of younger conservative women who now join this organization through collegiate and youth chapters. The Eagle Forum remains an active force in American politics, but increasingly is being supplanted by `younger' organizations like the Independent Women's Forum who have a `fresh' appearance and concede the feminist movement has some merits such as the Independent Women's Forum. Because any organization needs regular officer elections/leadership changes in order to keep their group fresh and responsive to member needs and the charter, I am curious what will happen to the Eagle Forum when Schlafly dies?

He also examines the contradictions between Schafly's public gay-bashing and herself having a gay son. In 1992 John Schlafly was outed as gay, verifying that GLBT people do come from all families. Schlafly is the first to insist that she did everything `right' and promoted heterosexuality, but still cannot explain away her son's sexuality. Presently, Schlafly does less public attacking of gays than the other new right organizations, but she still labels them a threat---essentially labeling her own son a threat. John's public support for mom's political activities actually might belie a more complicated private relationship as a result.

This book's only real flaw is that in addition to a portrait of Schlafly, Critchlow then attempts to talk about the American right in general at some depth. He argues the conservative movement impacted American politics, even if not in the exact ways which the groups and/or public figures intended.

Although it's necessary to know that Schlafly's ultimate start in politics came as a researcher for the infamous red-hunter Senator Joseph McCarthy (R Wisconsin), a discussion of the right in general does not work in this same book. Agreeing that some comparison of leadership similarities and differences among other new right women is needed at some point, I think that he veered off his thesis during a lot of this other material and forgot what this particular book was supposed to be about during those points. These portions of his book are still scholarly, but subsequently become a case of trying to do too much with too little pages. Critchlow would have been better served by writing a second general book on the American right and gender.

Donald T. Critchlow has written a timely and much needed examination of the rise of conservatism in American political culture through the life of Phyllis Schlafly. For too long Schlafly's importance has been obfuscated by historians intent on discrediting her rather than noting her importance. Critchlow fills this gap. He brings to life Schlafly's political career beginning in the anticommunist fervor of the 1950s to her role in shaping Republican defense policy during the 1970s to the fight over the ERA. He also includes an important assessment of Schlafly's present political activities.

Based on extensive archival research from various libraries and institutions, Critchlow's examination of Schlafly deserves the attention it has already received by the academic community and the press, including such publications as the New Yorker. This prestigious magazine included Phyllis Schlafly and Grassroots Conservatism as one of its fall book selections, which testifies to the book's important insights and balanced interpretation.

Finally, Phyllis Schlafly gets her scholarly due. While historians have focused on the periphery of politics -- dwelling into ever narrow corners and cracks of the American Left -- Phyllis Schlafly has had no honest assessment. Plenty of dishonest, superficial assessment based on hand-me-down "that terrible woman" stories, but little more. (...).

Professor Critchlow is the dean of U.S. policy historians and he has taken a brave step tackling a figure so unpopular among academics. Then again, I am reminded of that member of the chattering classes who said, "I can't believe Nixon won , I don't know a single person who voted for him!" Critchlow batters that academic insularity to explain how and why Schlafly's message spawned "grassroots conservatism." Let's hope some who would rather not hear, do listen.

The alternative offered by Critchlow's study is, to take a quote from one of her best-selling titles,

"A Choice, Not an Echo" of the silly things constantly said
about her and other movement conservatives.

Wake up historians (left or right), you have nothing to lose but your ignorance!

Jonathan Bean
Southern Illinois University

It's told in a fluent and lively style, though a little shorter I wouldn't have minded. A collection of memorable dictums by P.S. like: "Morality without intelligence may be useless, but intelligence without morality is highly dangerous." In the next one just change 'communism' for any kind of anti-Americanism of today: "America cannot save the free world from communism until our leaders learn that a communist is a conspirator against Christianity and democracy."

P.S. is definitely a landmark in the journey of American conservatism. Not only did she stand her ground against blood-thirsty libs and violent pacifists, she did it with brilliance, panache, and great sense of humor. A natural leader of a lady. And she didn't "marry" any Republican President along the way. She pushed America's issues trusting the people would support her: the grassroots. And sure she knows how to mobilize them. The Right will be orphaned when she leaves the scene, totally in the hands of the new Inquisition at the Left.

There are many nuggets in this thick history book, i.e. Alan Alda's appearance before the Illinois state to testify on behalf of ERA (the movement that wanted to make men out of women, disposing women of their privileges). Asked if he support his two daughters being drafted during a war, he answered emphatically "Yes", but added that his daughters would not enter the military even if drafted because they were pacifists, conscientious objectors. Great, just great, Mr Alda.

If i have come to love this woman it is not only because of her style, her intelligence, her power of endurance, her sagacity, though any one of these qualities would make it for me, but above all because of her sense of humor, which the Right lacks terribly so much, and consequently is paying dearly for it. At a rally: "First of all, I want to thank my husband Fred, for letting me come -Ialways like to say that, because it makes the libs so mad!"

Now, how can't you fall in love with this woman?!