Today, in our last episode of our Cold War series, we are exploring the Cold War roots of the modern conservative movement. We’ll trace the arc of the grassroots movement from the 1950s up to the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment in 1982, getting a glimpse at how the conservative movement began to move away from moderate, mainstream Republicanism. And we will see how women were central to the movement’s organizational and political success.
Transcript for The Rise of the American Right During the Cold War: Anti-Communism, Suburban Women, and a Grassroots Revolution
Elizabeth: In the spring of 1961, a group of women gathered in a living room in Orange County, California to discuss an existential threat to their community- what they believed was infiltration of communist ideology into the local public-school curriculum. These women were housewives, churchgoers, and members of the PTA. Yet their gathering was part of a political mobilization that would eventually transform the Republican Party and radically alter the course of American politics.[1]
Marissa: This cohort of primarily white, middle class, suburban women organized around Cold War anxieties, and resistance to what they saw as the “liberal state,” with a bit of Jesus thrown in for good measure. Often, the rise of the New Right is described as coming from male political operatives such William F. Buckley founding National Review in 1955, or conservative Barry Goldwater running for president in the election of 1964. However, scholarship that takes gender into consideration finds that the movement’s real engine was a grassroots network of suburban housewives that began as early as the 1950s. They mobilized around kitchen tables and created local study groups that slowly evolved into a national New Right movement.[2]
Elizabeth: Today, in our last episode of our Cold War series, we are exploring the Cold War roots of the modern conservative movement. We’ll trace the arc of the grassroots movement from the 1950s up to the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment in 1982, getting a glimpse at how the conservative movement began to move away from moderate, mainstream Republicanism. And we will see how women were central to the movement’s organizational and political success.
I’m Elizabeth
And I’m Marissa
And we are your historians for this episode of Dig.
Marissa: Patreon: We are so thankful for all of our Patreon supporters – especially our Auger and Excavator level patrons: Joey, Susan, Colin, Lauren, Edward, Denise, Maria, Megan, Jessy, Karen, Lisa, Alissa, and Ben! We can’t thank you enough. Listener, if you enjoy what we do here but aren’t yet a patron of this show, it’s easy: just go to patreon.com/digpodcast to learn more.
Elizabeth: All of our episodes are based on the research of historians and other scholars. The main sources I used were Lisa McGirr’s book Suburban Warriors: The Origins of the New American Right and Michelle Nickerson’s Mothers of Conservatism: Women and the Postwar Right. I also consulted scholarship by historians Kim Phillips-Fein, Mary C. Brennan, Matthew Dallek, and Donald Critchlow among others. For a full bibliography and show notes you can visit our website at digpodcast.org
Marissa: Anti-communism was the most potent factor in the growth of postwar American conservatism. The broader post WWII, Second Red Scare of which Joe McCarthy was the most visible symbol, had been building since the late 1940s. The Soviet Union’s successful atomic bomb test in 1949, the communist victory in the Chinese Civil War that same year, the arrest of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg for passing nuclear secrets to the Soviets, and the conviction of Alger Hiss, a senior State Department official, for perjury related to espionage charges all contributed to a climate in the U.S. in which the question of communist infiltration felt urgent and real.
Elizabeth: To be a conservative in the 1950s was to believe, with genuine conviction, that the United States stood at the center of a global struggle between Christian civilization and godless Soviet totalitarianism. This binary, black-and-white view of the virtues of the United States against evils of Soviet Russia made domestic policy debates feel existential for many people. Anti-communism became a framework through which millions of Americans made sense of the postwar world.[3]
Marissa: Additionally, conservatism was fueled by a powerful anti-statist tradition. Friedrich Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom, published in 1944 and condensed for mass distribution by Reader’s Digest in 1945, warned readers that state economic planning inevitably led to political tyranny. Hayek argued that the New Deal welfare state had set the United States on the same road that had produced European fascism and Soviet communism and must be dismantled. This and similar arguments resonated with many white middle-class suburbanites and business owners who feared that government expansion would chip away their prosperity and privilege.[4]
Elizabeth: Post WWII suburbanization contributed to this fear. The postwar housing boom and federal highway construction made sprawling suburban developments viable across the country. Many of these newly built suburban developments explicitly restricted Black and Brown people from buying homes in them.
Marissa: Simultaneously, a massive uptick in Cold War military spending created explosive growth in the defense and aerospace industries. Much of that growth was concentrated in the Sunbelt, which includes California, Texas, Arizona, and Florida. This created high demand for engineers, scientists, and managers to work in private companies with government contracts in cities like Houston, Phoenix, San Diego, and Orange County.
Elizabeth: The educated, mostly white people moving into suburbs in the Sunbelt were leaving behind older industrial cities in the Northeast and Midwest that they associated with union power and overcrowding. They were arriving in communities that were newer, whiter, less unionized, and more receptive to a politics of “individualism.” As historian Lisa McGirr argues, it was this combination of new prosperity and old anxiety that made the postwar Sunbelt suburbs the “incubators” of a distinctive conservative political culture.[5]
Marissa: Even though growth in the Sunbelt was fueled by massive government spending, many people who moved there were small-business owners or salaried professionals who viewed taxation and government regulation as direct threats to their success. Anti-communism resonated with this group because it offered a single framework that connected their distrust of government expansion to the global struggle against Soviet totalitarianism. Add in religion, which juxtaposed American Christianity against the atheist Soviet Union, and this deepened the conviction. The Sunbelt was heavily Protestant evangelical and, in some areas, strongly Catholic, making the Cold War for many Sunbelt conservatives, more than a disagreement over economic systems but a spiritual contest between Christian faith and an atheist Soviet Union.
Elizabeth: The John Birch Society, which we’ll refer to as JBS or the Birch Society, was founded in 1958 by candy manufacturer Robert Welch and captures some of the zeal of early Cold War conservatism. Welch named the group the John Birch Society for an Army intelligence officer killed by Chinese Communist forces in 1945, whom Welch designated the first American casualty of the Cold War. The JBS became a movement dedicated to fighting what Welch saw as a communist conspiracy operating at the highest levels of American government. Welch even went so far as to accuse Republican President Eisenhower of being “a dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy.[6]
Marissa: In Orange County, Birch Society chapters drew heavily from the professional middle class working in the aerospace industry, small-business owners, doctors, dentists, lawyers, and their wives.[7] The organization was based on a cell structure. Welch designed the JBS around small, tight-knit local chapters of no more than twenty members, each operating with a degree of independence from the national organization while remaining ideologically accountable to it through a steady stream of bulletins and reading materials issued from headquarters in Belmont, Massachusetts. Members were expected to know one another personally and to meet regularly in private homes or community spaces. Ironically, this style of organizing was adopted from the communist organizing models its members despised. Nevertheless, it was very effective at building strong local networks.
Elizabeth: Each chapter was expected to undertake local projects like monitoring school boards and pressuring libraries to remove what they considered subversive materials. They were also supposed to recruit new likeminded members from their personal and professional networks. National coordination came by Welch’s monthly publication, the American Opinion and his detailed “Coordinator’s” letters told chapters what issues to prioritize and what actions to take.
Marissa: Members gathered in living rooms and community centers and worked through reading lists of approved books and pamphlets. They organized public speakers and study seminars to discuss the dangers of communism, social welfare, and liberal education. Members denounced the federal income tax, the United Nations, the fluoridation of public water supplies, and the civil rights movement as all communist-inspired plots to undermine American life. The organization pushed the boundaries of acceptable political talk rightward, slowly introducing arguments that had once been confined to the political fringe but that gradually entered mainstream debate. Even as conservative figures like William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater publicly disavowed the radical nature of Birch Society ideology, it was successful at directing the energy of grassroots conservatives further to the right.[8]
Elizabeth: The JBS served as an opportunity for many suburban women to enter formal political life. The organization’s local chapter model allowed housewives to organize meetings in their homes and around school schedules. Birch ideology connected domestic concerns, such as the perceived corruption of the public-school curriculum as a threat to Christian values, to larger geopolitical stakes in the Cold War.
Marissa: Thousands of housewives and mothers got involved with the JBS and similar organizations in the 1950s and early 1960s, and many of them went on to become organizers, state-level lobbyists, and even campaign managers in subsequent decades.
Elizabeth: Michelle Nickerson’s research on this group of women in Los Angeles and Orange County who mobilized through their domestic identities as housewives and mothers. They used a “protecting the home” type of argument. This may sound familiar to some listeners, the Women’s Christian Temperance Union of the late 19th, early 20th century had a similar argument– that women must get the vote to protect the home from the evils of alcohol. Nickerson’s book does an awesome job of tracing American women’s claims on political life through the domestic sphere all the way from the Early Republic ideal of Republican Motherhood to twentieth-century housewife activism.[9] Often we look at this type of women’s activism through a progressive lens, but Nickerson and historian Lisa McGirr remind us that we should not forget how this type of women-centered politics also enabled the growth of the modern conservative movement.
Marissa: In addition to the JBS, other organizations like Pro-America and the Minute Women of the USA, both active in the early 1950s, added to the growth of women’s conservative activism that continued for the next three decades. Their members monitored school textbooks for pro-Soviet or anti-American content, attended school board meetings, organized boycotts of businesses that supported left-leaning causes, and maintained correspondence networks that disseminated anti-communist literature across hundreds of communities. Conservative women argued that the schools were the front line of the ideological struggle, and that mothers had a right and a duty to scrutinize what their children were being taught. The campaign against UNESCO materials in Los Angeles schools illustrates just how organized and effective this activism could be.
Elizabeth: UNESCO, which stands for the United Nations Educational, Scientific, Cultural Organization was founded in November of 1945, as a specialized United Nations agency. The goal was to foster peace among nations through education, science and sustainable development, and human rights and culture — instead of waging wars. UNESCO was founded with 44 nations, including the United States, and began producing “fundamental education” resources that hoped to battle illiteracy, rebuild museums and other sites ruined by WWII, and curb nationalism (which had led to WWII in the first place). For example, in 1951 UNESCO published a booklet titled “Better History Books,” which pointed out the nativist and nationalist tendencies of history textbooks, particularly in Europe. It highlighted how Muslims were “generally pictured as a mounted warrior brandishing a scimitar, while the Christian was a robed monk, making the sign of the cross.” Or that Norwegian textbooks cast the Swedish as pillagers and “savages” during the 16th century, while conveniently ignoring that “Norwegians and Danes killed and plundered in exactly the same way during their raids across the Swedish frontier.”[10] One of UNESCOs mission was to eradicate racism through education across the globe. This prompted South Africa to withdraw from the organization in 1955 claiming the organization’s publications interfered in the country’s “racial problems,” aka apartheid.
Marissa: In 1948 a man named Alexander Stoddard became the superintendent of Los Angeles public schools. Stoddard had previously served on the United States National Commission for UNESCO, a group formed by the U.S. Senate to make sure UNESCO’s educational mission was implemented at the U.S. school district level. When Stoddard became superintendent of Los Angeles schools, he implemented a broad UNESCO program that included UNESCO-developed materials, teaching workshops, and student activities to use in the classroom. Most educators and administrators were in favor of the move and Stoddard had strong support from educators in the district.
Elizabeth: One of UNESCO’s goals was the eradication of toxic nationalism and the fostering of world peace. To do this, one UNESCO pamphlet warned educators that children breathing the “poisoned air of nationalism” posed an obstacle to proper education. It went on to state that those nationalist lessons began in the home and warned that “… it is frequently the family that infects the child with extreme nationalism.”[11]
Marissa: This characterization upset many conservative parents who felt they were scapegoated as an “enemy” that public schools needed to overcome. They saw the UNESCO curriculum as a way that liberal intellectuals were attempting to brainwash their children. Conservative women argued that UNESCO teaching manuals were corrupting children with what critics called “worldmindedness,” or “internationalist” ideology that they associated with communism and the deliberate undermining of parental authority. Some even associated it with miscegenation.[12]
Elizabeth: One activist, Florence Fowler Lyons, brought together a broad coalition of women’s organizations in opposition to the UNESCO materials, drawing in the Los Angeles Women’s Breakfast Club, the Women’s Republican Study Club, the Junior League, and various Protestant and Catholic church groups. Libertarian minister James Fifield amplified the group’s anti-UNESCO campaign on his nationally broadcast radio program every week, lambasting the “pagan, Anti-God UNESCO.”[13]
Marissa: Lyons was an interesting character. She was not a mother, nor married, but she became a conservative champion of school children, nonetheless. She had a background in journalism and found a unique niche in the growing popularity of conservative political literature. Her investigative skills proved useful and she became known as an expert in uncovering what she believed to be communist infiltration in public schools. In one speech she warned that “Children are daily being fed doses of Communism, Socialism, New Dealism and other isms …” through UNESCO teaching materials. In another speech she warned mothers that “Stalking through every phase of American life today is a stark, grinning, crimson-clad Pied Piper called UNESCO.” “He’s piping a tune he calls ‘peace’ and the children and some of the adults are following him, dancing in the streets and singing—dancing and singing on their way to total destruction of both themselves and this nation.” In historian Michelle Nickerson’s words “Florence Fowler Lyons put the fear of the devil and Stalin in her audiences.”[14]
Elizabeth: Lyons and her majority female followers also took issue with UNESCOs anti-racism work. The 1951 collaborative effort between biologists, anthropologists, and other scientists culminated in the UNESCO Statements on Race, which asserted that race is created by “biological histories,” and were not static states of being. It further argued that race is created by a “social myth” that had created globalized harm (like WWII). Meant to be a scholarly rebuke of Nazi-race science, the Statements on Race enraged Sunbelt conservatives. Leaning into white parent’s fears that their white children would have sex with Black and Brown people, Lyons warned that UNESCO “… states there is but one race in the world—the human race—and implies the sooner it is bred and bended back to its original color the sooner the world will have peace.”[15]
Marissa: Although Lyons was the mouthpiece, it was the grassroots organizing by housewives and mothers that fueled the pressure campaign against UNESCO curriculum. And it worked. In 1953, the Los Angeles Board of Education voted to eliminate all UNESCO programs from its schools.²
Elizabeth: This was not relegated to southern California. Women organizing against UNESCO education happened in cities across the U.S. including Buffalo, Nashville, Houston, and Tampa, among others. A Bulletin of the Philadelphia-based American Flag Committee claimed that UNESCO’s “Toward World Understanding” model instructed teachers to stifle feelings of patriotism in their students.[16]
Marissa: Controversies over UNESCO-affiliated materials, as well as issues over the introduction of sex education and the perceived secularization of the school curriculum, galvanized women who might not otherwise have become politically active.[17] School board elections, historically largely ignored by the general public, became hotly contested battlegrounds as conservative women organized and turned out sympathetic voters.
Elizabeth: In addition to kitchen tables, churches served as organizing hubs for conservative women. Protestant evangelical and Catholic women organized around anti-communism, through established networks of the Birch Society or through their own, homegrown organizations. The same women who organized the school board campaigns also ran the church bake sales, and they understood both activities as an expression of womanly protection over the home. They created an activist network through a community of shared values and institutions, rooted in anti-communism and Christianity.[18] But they did not limit their activism to local domestic issues but began to engage with larger issues of foreign policy.
Marissa: By the mid-1970s, the JBS-aligned conservative movement decided that the Republican establishment was becoming an obstacle to conservative goals. Richard Nixon, who began his career by redbaiting his opponent for Senate and later built his name pursuing Alger Hiss and denouncing communist influence in government, soon ran afoul of the new conservative movement. Nixon’s détente policy, developed with National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger, represented a fundamental shift in American Cold War strategy. Détente accepted the permanence of the Soviet sphere of influence and sought to manage superpower competition through negotiation and mutual restraint, rather than crushing Soviet power that conservatives had long demanded.[19]
Elizabeth: This issue boiled over during The Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) in 1972. The talks culminated in the SALT I agreement, which stated that the United States and the Soviet Union would agree to freeze the deployment of certain categories of nuclear weapons, basically creating a rough strategic parity between the two superpowers. The new conservative movement activists viewed this as a betrayal, as they had insisted for two decades that the United States must maintain clear nuclear superiority.
Marissa: To these activists, SALT confirmed their worst fears about the direction of Republican foreign policy. For two decades they had argued that any negotiated agreement with a totalitarian power was at best naive and at worst suicidal.[20] Phyllis Schlafly and Chester Ward made this argument in their 1964 book The Gravediggers and their 1967 follow-up Strike from Space, writing that the U.S. foreign policy establishment was systematically weakening American defenses in the name of an illusory stability.[21] They viewed SALT as a case-in-point. A Republican president, advised by a national security elite that had never shared the movement’s convictions, had traded away American strategic advantage for a piece of paper.
Elizabeth: The conservative movement tolerated Nixon when he was useful, particularly when his Southern Strategy mobilized the racist anxieties the movement had cultivated for years and won him the white house, but turned against him when he was not. The movement continued to push against the Republican mainstream under president Gerald Ford, who continued the détente policy and in 1975 refused to receive a dissident Soviet novelist and anti-communist agitator, at the White House to avoid offending the Soviets.[22] Ronald Reagan, preparing his challenge to Ford in the 1976 Republican primaries, seized on what he saw as Ford’s moral cowardice in the face of an ongoing communist threat. Reagan’s campaign mobilized the grassroots networks of anti-communist women’s organizations and Sunbelt activists to support his campaign. Although Reagan lost the ’76 presidential nomination to Ford, his campaign showed how important the new conservative movement had become to American politics. Later, that same group pushed him into the White House in 1980.
Marissa: Other activists contributed to the growth of the New Right conservative movement. In 1973, Paul Weyrich and Edwin Feulner founded a think tank explicitly designed to produce conservative policy analysis for immediate use by legislators, and named it the Heritage Foundation. It has gone on to dominate conservative politics and policy, most recently serving as the incubator for Project 2025, the blueprint for a massive conservative overhaul of the federal government.
Elizabeth: In 1965, Richard Viguerie began to create a massive mailing list of donors that had contributed to conservative Barry Goldwater’s ’64 presidential campaign. Viguerie, an acolyte of Joseph McCarthy, went to the U.S. House of Representatives which by law recorded every donor that gave over $50 to a presidential campaign. He copied,by hand, 12,500 donors that had given to Goldwater’s 1964 campaign. This was the beginning, or the invention, of direct-mail fundraising. Through direct mail, Viguerie built a conservative donor base independent of the Republican party establishment.[23] Innovations like the Heritage Foundation and direct-mail fundraising meant that the conservative movement was no longer dependent on the Republican establishment for resources and could pressure Republican politicians from outside the party apparatus, pushing it even further to the right.
Marissa: Anit-communist crusader Phyllis Schlafly also became a master of the conservative mailing list. Schlafly had been a committed anti-communist activist since the 1940s, and her 1964 self-published book A Choice Not an Echoargued that the Republican Party’s eastern establishment had systematically suppressed true conservatives. The book sold over three million copies and was important in catapulting conservative Barry Goldwater to the presidential candidate position in 1964.[24] Schlafly was a fierce opponent of arms control agreements with the Soviet Union, like SALT, and an advocate for American nuclear superiority. She began The Phyllis Schlafly Report in 1967 as a monthly newsletter. By the early 1970s she had over 35,000 subscribers. And remember, this is the mail- not an email list. In 1972 she launched The Eagle Forum, a conservative organization that managed nationwide direct-mail campaigns to raise money and alert thousands of followers about proposed legislation and cultural issues. Both of these allowed her to mobilize a successful counter movement to the Equal Rights Amendment.
Elizabeth: When Congress passed the Equal Rights Amendment in 1972 and sent it to the states for ratification, its supporters assumed victory was a no-brainer. Within a year, thirty states had ratified it, and the remaining eight seemed likely to follow. But Schlafly had other plans. In October 1972, she founded STOP ERA, standing for “Stop Taking Our Privileges,” and mobilized her huge network of conservative women through her mailing list.[25] Schlafly argued that the ERA would strip away legal protections that women currently enjoyed, such as the right to be supported by their husbands, exemption from military combat, and allowance to have sex-segregated facilities. Shlafly positioned the STOP ERA as defenders of women’s interests against a feminist elite that had contempt for housewives and mothers.[26] This galvanized the same women that had organized against what they perceived as encroaching communism in public schools throughout the 1950s and 1960s. These women viewed the ERA as the latest assault on the values they had spent decades defending from a “liberal” establishment.
Marissa: When Schlafly’s STOP ERA volunteers descended on state capitols to lobby against ratification, they frequently brought homemade baked goods with tags reading “Bread and Butter Issues” or “From the Ladies Who Love You.”[27] The symbolism was deliberate. These women were performing their femininity even as they engaged in hard-nosed political lobbying. The performance was also, on some level, sincere. They genuinely believed that baking bread and protecting their homes from federal intrusion were expressions of the same commitment to Christian womanhood and American liberty.
Elizabeth: The campaign was a huge success and by 1977, the momentum to ratify the ERA had stalled. Schlafly was able to tap into church networks, civic organizations, and community life in ways that ERA supporters, often dependent on national feminist organizations with shallow local roots, could not match.[28] No new states ratified after Indiana in January of 1977, and Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, Tennessee, and South Dakota even voted to rescind their earlier ratifications. When the extended ratification deadline passed in June 1982, the ERA was three states short of the thirty-eight needed to become a constitutional amendment.[29]
Marissa: These movements, like the John Birch Society’s anti-communist study groups, the housewife campaigns against UNESCO and progressive textbooks, the STOP ERA campaign, and the anti-détente insurgency within the Republican party had real connections. The same women who organized against UNESCO textbooks in the 1950s were organizing against the ERA in the ‘70s. The churches that hosted anti-communist speakers also hosted STOP ERA organizing meetings. The same direct-mail infrastructure that Viguerie built for conservative candidates in the late 1960s was used to mobilize opposition to both the ERA and a second arms treaty, SALT II, in 1979.[30]
Elizabeth: The Sunbelt conservatives that historians like McGirr and Nickerson (among others) have studied were a grassroots force of educated and organized people who drew on the resources and whiteness of postwar prosperity to build a New Right that has fundamentally changed American politics.[31] And women were its most important architects, providing the volunteer labor, community networks, and moral authority that gave the movement its grassroots depth.[32] So in conclusion, there would be no Reaganomics, no Focus on the Family, and no MAGA, without the grassroots activism of everyday suburban housewives during the Cold War.
Thank you for joining us today. As always, we invite you to follow us on BlueSky and Instagram at dig_history. If you have a comment or question or want to share some kind words with us, you can always email us at hello@digpodcast.org – we love listener mail! If you’re an educator, we’ve got a compendium of episodes you can use in the classroom – and free teaching resources, including full lesson plans! – on our website, digpodcast.org. You’ll also find full bibliographies, the scripts for all of our episodes, resources, and a link to our swag store at digpodcast.org. Thanks for listening.
Bibliography
Brennan, Mary C. Wives, Mothers, and the Red Menace: Conservative Women and the Crusade against Communism. Boulder: University Press of Colorado, 2008.
Critchlow, Donald T. Phyllis Schlafly and Grassroots Conservatism: A Woman’s Crusade. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005.
Dallek, Matthew. Birchers: How the John Birch Society Radicalized the American Right. New York: Basic Books, 2023.
McGirr, Lisa. Suburban Warriors: The Origins of the New American Right. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001.
Nickerson, Michelle. Mothers of Conservatism: Women and the Postwar Right. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012.
Perlstein, Rick. Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America. New York: Scribner, 2008.
Perlstein, Rick. The Invisible Bridge: The Fall of Nixon and the Rise of Reagan. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2014.
Phillips-Fein, Kim. Invisible Hands: The Making of the Conservative Movement from the New Deal to Reagan. New York: W. W. Norton, 2009.
Schlafly, Phyllis. A Choice Not an Echo. Alton, IL: Pere Marquette Press, 1964.
Schoenwald, Jonathan M. A Time for Choosing: The Rise of Modern American Conservatism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
[1]Lisa McGirr, Suburban Warriors: The Origins of the New American Right (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), 3–5.
[2]McGirr, Suburban Warriors; Michelle Nickerson, Mothers of Conservatism: Women and the Postwar Right (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012).
[3]Mary C. Brennan, Wives, Mothers, and the Red Menace: Conservative Women and the Crusade against Communism (Boulder: University Press of Colorado, 2008), 12.
[4]Kim Phillips-Fein, Invisible Hands: The Making of the Conservative Movement from the New Deal to Reagan (New York: W. W. Norton, 2009), 42.
[5]McGirr, Suburban Warriors, 25–30.
[6]Jonathan M. Schoenwald, A Time for Choosing: The Rise of Modern American Conservatism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 62-64.
[7]McGirr, Suburban Warriors, 75.
[8]Schoenwald, A Time for Choosing, 89.
[9] Nickerson, Mothers of Conservatism, xiv.
[10] UNESCO and its Programme IV, Better History Textbooks, 1.
[11] Nickerson, Mothers of Conservatism, 130.
[12] Nicerson, Mothers of Conservatism, 129.
[13] Nickerson, Mothers of Conservatism, 132.
[14] Nickerson, Mothers of Conservatism, 131.
[15] Nickerson, Mothers of Conservatism, 131.
[16] Nickerson, Mothers of Conservatism, 134.
[17]Nickerson, Mothers of Conservatism, 67.
[18]McGirr, Suburban Warriors, 111.
[19]Rick Perlstein, Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America (New York: Scribner, 2008), 644.
[20]Phillips-Fein, Invisible Hands, 162.
[21]Critchlow, Phyllis Schlafly and Grassroots Conservatism, 163.
[22]Rick Perlstein, The Invisible Bridge: The Fall of Nixon and the Rise of Reagan (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2014), 458.
[23]Phillips-Fein, Invisible Hands, 183.
[24]Phyllis Schlafly, A Choice Not an Echo (Alton, IL: Pere Marquette Press, 1964), 5; Donald T. Critchlow, Phyllis Schlafly and Grassroots Conservatism: A Woman’s Crusade (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005), 140.
[25]Critchlow, Phyllis Schlafly and Grassroots Conservatism, 212.
[26]Critchlow, Phyllis Schlafly and Grassroots Conservatism, 218.
[27]Critchlow, Phyllis Schlafly and Grassroots Conservatism, 225.
[28]Critchlow, Phyllis Schlafly and Grassroots Conservatism, 282.
[29]Critchlow, Phyllis Schlafly and Grassroots Conservatism, 280.
[30]Phillips-Fein, Invisible Hands, 195.
[31]McGirr, Suburban Warriors, 238.
[32]Nickerson, Mothers of Conservatism, 168.
Discover more from DIG
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
0 Comments