The 1970s: Conservatives Rising

At left, Phyllis Schlafly addresses a Stop ERA rally, 1974. (source:

www.americanheritage.com) At right Hard Hat protest in New York City, 1970.
(Source: http://chnm.gmu.edu/hardhats/iwojimaphoto.html)

Backlash Ahead, Political Cartoon about Busing 1974 (source: hotx.com/joebob/joebob12-25-95/bus.GIF) and 1973 Boston
Protest against busing, with leader Louise Day Hicks (source: www.pbs.org)

Lesson Goals:
1. Students will understand how opposition to Supreme Court decisions led to the rise of the conservative
movement
2. Students will analyze how opposition to feminism and the Equal Rights Amendment empowered
conservatives
3. Students will see how property and tax issues became important in the 1970s and contributed to the rise
of the right
4. Students will analyze the increasing racial tension over affirmative action and busing policies
5. Students will see how popular culture, as reflected in film and movies, reflected an increasingly
conservative political culture
Historical Interpretation

1. Students show the connections, causal and otherwise, between particular historical events and larger
social, economic, and political trends and developments.

Introduction
The 1970s doesnt have the powerful imagery of the 1960s (or the 1980s for that matter), but it was a
key decade for the development of the conservative movement in America. On the surface, though, the decade
did not seem that favorable to conservatives. Vietnam kept the new Nixon administration bogged down,
economic stagflation and chronic gas shortages plagued the nations economy, and many conservatives were
upset that Nixon wasnt conservative enough. The Watergate scandal rocked his administration beyond repair,
leading to the Nixons resignation and an increase in Democrats elected to all levels of government. Between
1974-1976, the Democrats gained over 50 House Seats, 5 Senate Seats, and won the presidency in 1976. The
gains Republicans had made in previous presidential and Congressional elections seemed to have been halted,
and the number of Americans who identified themselves as Republican was at an all time low. Yet the
Democrats could not move their electoral victories into longstanding political victories, and the 1970s became
dominated by issues of race, values and taxes. These were areas of new political opportunity for the right, and
they helped conservatives build a growing electoral coalition. Organizing in smaller grass roots organizations
around these hot-button political issues in the 1970s, conservatives were becoming an emerging force in
American politics.
Interestingly, the number of Americans who identified themselves as conservatives remained stable
after Watergate, and thereafter began to grow steadily as new social and moral issues entered politics. This
trend seemed to show that the conservative movement was somehow larger than just politics, and was also
about economic, social, religious, and cultural issues. In short, although the conservative movement was often
connected to the Republican Party, clearly the conservative movement was its own force. Fueled by divisive
social issues such as busing, abortion, gay rights, taxes, and affirmative action, millions of new supporters were
brought into the conservative cause. These grassroots activists became more and more energized as the
1970s progressed.
The Democratic Party, which was still suffering from its implosion in 1968, also contributed to the
growth of the conservative movement during the 1970s. The 1972 Democratic platform addressed the rights of
the poor, Native Americans, the physically handicapped, the mentally retarded, and the criminally convicted.
Little mention was made to combat rising crime rates or urban violence, and new voting rules empowered
minorities in the 1972 Democratic National Convention. Increasingly viewed as a party of its newer
constituencies (feminists, racial minorities, anti-war activists, etc.) traditional Democrats began to feel
politically homeless. The new rights-based liberalism of the Democratic Party seemed to favor the interests of
African-Americans and the poor over the middle and working classes. The New Deal Coalition that FDR had
put together in the 1930s, which included Irish and Italian white ethnics, blue-collar workers, and Southern
conservatives, was clearly fracturing as the Democratic Party moved in this direction.
These strains were first opened up in the 1968 election, but they were bursting at the seams during the
1970s. First, Republican Richard Nixon won 49 of 50 states in the 1972 presidential election, winning 61% of
the popular vote over the liberal, anti-war Democrat George McGovern (who received only 38% of the vote).
This was nearly the identical margin Democrat Lyndon Johnson beat conservative Barry Goldwater in the 1964
election! Within an eight year period the term liberal had become a synonym for government waste, high
taxes, and special programs for minorities. In addition, conservative Democrats often joined socially
conservative Republicans in Congress, especially when it came to opposing abortion, affirmative action,
feminism, and other explosive social issues. Anti-tax and economic conservatives were also making headway,
especially at the state and local level, where they led opposition to taxing measures (such as Proposition 13) that
were seen as contributing to government waste and unfairly penalizing the middle class. By 1980, the
Republican Party had become identified with an umbrella of conservative issues, providing a home for many
diverse groups (including upset Democrats).
In many ways, then, the 1970s should be seen as a transitional decade between 1960s era-liberalism,
and the victorious conservatism of the 1980s. Yet the 1970s is also unique, in that it gave birth to many of the
culture war issues that empowered the New Right. Disputes over busing, the ERA, and affirmative action
kept discussions over race and gender very much alive. These issues infused the American right with same
energy, purpose, and commitment that the civil rights and social justice activists brought to New Left activism
in the 1960s. The difference, of course, was this time the political momentum was clearly on the conservatives
side.

Vocabulary:
Working class: refers to union members, blue-collar workers, and laborers who were the backbone of
the Democratic Party
New Deal Coalition: the coalition (group) of voters that supported the Democratic Party since the New
Deal. Included working class whites, Southerners, women, and blacks
Pro-Life: opponents to abortion
Pro-Choice: supporters of abortion rights
Busing: sending students (by bus) to schools outside their neighborhood to achieve racial balance
Suburb: areas outside the inner city characterized by larger homes, better schools, and close access to
freeways and shopping opportunities
Stagflation: a combination of unemployment and inflation
White flight: the movement of whites out of the inner cities and into suburban areas
Identity movements: groups that mobilized around specific issues, such as environmentalism,
consumerism, or gay rights
Religious right: growing movement of religious conservatives, who were in favor of school prayer, and
opposed to abortion and homosexuality
New right: groups that supported conservative causes and candidates, included social conservatives and
economic conservatives
Affirmative action: policies designed to use race (or gender) as a factor in boosting minority
representation in schools, the workplace, etc.
Quota: a strict numerical target for affirmative action policies.
Sunbelt: areas in the South and Southwestern United States that grew rapidly after WWII. Typically had
warmer climates, booming economies, and growing suburban neighborhoods.
Rustbelt: Northeastern and Midwestern areas that lost jobs and population after WWII.
Urban crisis: the growing unemployment, rising crime rates, and deteriorating schools in Americas
cities
 ISSUE #1: Working Class Dissatisfaction
The Hard Hat Rebellion (1970)

For many working class Americans, the anti-war protestors were too much to take. If the drug use
and sexuality werent enough, the fact that many of the protesters received Vietnam War deferments
(postponements) while their sons were fighting in Vietnam pushed them over the top. The Hard Hat rebellion
in New York City in 1970 is symbolic of another strain on the traditional Democratic New Deal coalition, as
blue-collar construction workers attacked the largely upper-middle class student protestors. The demonstrators
were protesting the recent deaths of anti-war activists at Kent State and Jackson State University following
President Nixons bombing of Cambodia. The incident allegedly began when one of the protestors spit on an
American flag a construction worker was carrying. During the violence it was reported that the nearby Wall
Street businessmen were cheering the construction workers on, with chants of USA, USA and Love it or
Leave it! Joe Kelley, a construction worker involved in the incident, later said:

'I think that the large majority of people, going as high as 85 to 90 percent, are more than happy [with
what we did]. Not so much for the violence but for the stand we took.

Richard Nixon referred to the hard hats as part of the silent majority patriotic, hard-working
Americans upset at the excesses of the anti-war movement. Nixon even wore a hard hat sent by the
construction workers in a public show of support. After the incident, Nixons Vice President Spiro Agnew sent
Peter Brennan (president of the Construction Trades Council, a labor organization involved in the riot) a letter
commending the hard hats for an impressive display of patriotism- which seems to have become
unfashionable in recent years."
The Hard Hat rebellion was a local incident, but it clearly showed signs of larger strains within the
Democratic Party and the national economy. New York City and other Northeastern regions were hit hard
economically at this time. A sluggish economy with high inflation combined with a declining number of
blue-collar jobs produced much economic anxiety among Americas working class. Competition over
employment also made black-white relations, which were already tense, even worse. Construction workers,
firemen, police officers and other blue-collar Americans were clearly upset with the countrys direction, both
socially and economically. In 1972, the AFL-CIO (the nations largest labor union) refused to endorse the
Democratic nominee for President, George McGovern. That year Republican Richard Nixon received the votes
of many white, working class Americans. The Democratic Party, which in the 1930s had fought for worker
protections and the rights of workers to form unions, was losing much of that support in the 1970s.

Photos 1 and 2. Hard Hats rally against the anti-war demonstrators (left), and physically confront a protestor (right).
Source:http://chnm.gmu.edu/hardhats/tie3.html
Photo 3. Hard Hat rebellion, New York City, 1970. Construction workers and anti-war demonstrators clash. (Source:
http://chnm.gmu.edu/hardhats/iwojimaphoto.html)

Write down three observations from the photographs.

This poem was sent to a New York newspaper following the incident.
I salute the Joe Kellys in their fight, To make sure our flag gets treated right
Oh, this road is hard, and mighty lonely, For a gallant band supported only
by The Army, Navy, and Marines. Half the population of Queens
Nixon, Agnew, and of course, New York's entire police force.
Edna Toney, Katonah, N.Y.

What is the point of view expressed in this poem? Does she support the hard hats?

The author of the letter is from Queens, a working class district in New York. What made many working
class Americans support the hard hats?
In photo 3, the caption from the New York Daily News, May 9, 1970 read Long-haired youth is on the
receiving end of the workers' anger. Is this an appropriate caption for the photograph? Would you give
it another caption? If so, what?
Explain why many saw the hard hats as patriotic.
Do you agree with Vice President Agnew that patriotism was on display during the riot? Explain.
Were economic factors also involved in producing working class anger at this time? Explain.
Working class Americans had for decades formed the backbone of the Democratic Party. How does the
hard hat rebellion demonstrate problems with the traditional Democratic coalition?
 ISSUE #2: Abortion
Roe v. Wade (1973)

Following Supreme Court decisions in the 1960s which banned school prayer (1962), made obscenity
prosecution more difficult (1964), legalized contraception (1965), and extended legal protections to criminal
defendants (1963, 1964, and 1966), the Supreme Court became a target of conservatives. Richard Nixon
claimed the court was engaged in social engineering, and promised to appoint conservative justices who
would not use the courts to impose their personal views. Nixon appointed several new justices, including Chief
Justice Warren Burger, in an attempt to move the Supreme Court in a more conservative direction. Yet the court
produced several surprising decisions in the 1970s, and in many ways continued to extend protections that were
unpopular with many conservatives. The most controversial rulings concerned the death penalty, affirmative
action, and abortion.
In 1973 the Supreme ruled in Roe v. Wade that the Constitutions right to privacy covered a
womans right to seek an abortion. Nearly every state banned or limited the procedure at the time, and the
Courts ruling made those state laws unconstitutional. The ruling allowed women to terminate a pregnancy in
the first trimester, and limited the states abilities to stop the process after that point. There was immediate
moral and religious opposition from Pro-Life groups, who saw abortion as murder. Conservatives also pointed
out that the right to privacy is not mentioned in the constitution. The Supreme Court said this was implied by
various amendments in the Bill of Rights, causing critics to question whether the judges were putting their own
moral views into the decision. Supporters of Roe pointed out that many women had been seeking dangerous,
illegal abortions for many years, so the decision protected a womans basic health and safety. Pro-Choice
supporters also argued that true gender equality meant allowing women to decide when to carry a pregnancy to
term.
While many of these liberal Supreme Court rulings were later accepted by conservatives, Roe v.
Wade has continued to generate controversy and inspire resistance. Conservative Catholics, Jews, Protestants
and Mormons all criticized the Roe decision from a religious standpoint, and many conservative womens
organizations protested as well. Politically speaking, opposition to Roe helped bring the conservative
movement together, as all these groups were united around a moral issue they felt needed to changed.

Photo 1. Pro-Life activists protest the Supreme Court in 1973. (source:www.English.ucla.edu)

 Photo 2. Pro-Choice Rally, 1992. (source: www.faqs.org/health/images/uchr_03_img0296.jpg)

Even before Roe v. Wade, many conservatives were already upset with the Supreme Court. Why?
What was the Supreme Courts ruling in Roe v. Wade?
Why was Roe controversial? What did critics of the decision argue?
Conservative womens organizations argued that abortion was putting the selfish individual desires of
women above their family responsibility as mothers. How did supporters of Roe respond?
How did Roe help energize the conservative movement?
Supreme Court rulings such as abortion were criticized as judicial activism by conservatives. Why did
conservatives feel the Supreme Court was going too far in many of its rulings?
 Issue #3. Civil Rights in the 1970s: Busing

In order to fully implement the historic 1954 Brown v. Board of Education ruling (which ended school
segregation), civil rights activists in the 1970s pushed for the busing of white and black students to achieve a
racial balance in our nations school. Simply ending legal segregation, they argued, did not address the
segregated neighborhoods that produced segregated schools. Busing actually began in the late 1960s, and even
before the Supreme Court ruled on the issue, a 1970 public opinion survey revealed 65% of Americans were
against busing (with only 22% in favor). In 1971, the Supreme Court gave its approval to busing in the Swann v.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg ruling. The Courts decision was widely supported by civil rights activists, who felt that
racially segregated schools harmed children, therefore violating the Constitution and the original Brown
decision. But busing was opposed by many white parents, who saw the Brown ruling as meaning that only legal
segregation violated the Constitution (not schools segregated by housing patterns). After the Swann decision,
busing spread nationwide usually as a result of court orders - and the yellow school bus became a symbol of
judicial tyranny to many whites.
In the 1972 Presidential election, Republican Richard Nixon strongly criticized the practice of busing.
Public anger toward busing grew, and parent organizations in both the North and South organized in defense of
local control of schools. Several Democratic and Republican Congressmen introduced bills to ban forced
busing, and some even suggested a constitutional amendment to outlaw busing. Ironically, it was cities outside
the South that were the most racially imbalanced and experienced the most tension over busing. In Boston, for
example, protests turned violent after working-class white Irish families were ordered to participate in busing.
The violence extended into the schools, where several white and black students were involved in fights, and
state troopers patrolled Bostons high schools from 1974-1976. Anti-busing protests also erupted in Detroit,
Denver, and Los Angeles, and one commentator described busing as the Vietnam of the seventies.
Few wealthy families had to participate in busing, since their children usually attended private schools
or lived in the suburbs (where there were no black schools and few black students to participate in busing). In
general, it was working class whites and even poorer blacks that had to share the burdens of busing. While
busing went off smoothly in several areas, it also had unintended consequences. Some white families moved out
of urban areas to avoid the possibility of busing their children, a process known as white flight. This quote
from a mother shows that opposition to busing was not usually overtly racist, but framed as protecting children
from potential danger:
To expect me to put my children on buses and send them across town to a school located in a
predominantly black area for the purpose of fulfilling a mathematical equation is both ridiculous and
unreasonable

White parents who opposed busing took a variety of responses. White housewives such as Louise Day
Hicks in Boston organized large protests. Some whites developed a new language of rights, one that avoided
the harsh segregationist rhetoric that was used to oppose school integration during the 1950s. They used a
color-blind language that showed distaste for busing in a race-neutral way. They argued for freedom of
choice programs that would allow parents to place their children in schools of their choice. Others argued for
limited one-way busing so that some black students could be bused to white schools, but not vice-versa. Other
suburban whites stressed that if the local schools were forced to integrate, the school quality would suffer,
thereby resulting in lower property values for their own homes. Nearly all parents that opposed busing stressed
protecting their children from what they saw as a social and judicial experiment. By the mid-1970s busing
became the key issue for many white voterss, even those who lived in the suburbs, where children seldom faced
the prospect of busing. Because of busing, the American public developed a more conservative view toward
school integration, one that endorsed the principles of integration, but opposed implementing integration
policies (such as busing or affirmative action) in their own neighborhoods. In the words of one parent:
Were not against integration...But to move children from one part of the country to another to satisfy
some judicial edict (decision) just doesnt make sense to me.
 Busing turned many white Americans into grassroots conservative activists. Said a white Boston
resident who was against busing, A conservative is a liberal whose child just got on a [forced] school bus.
White Americans seemed to show a willingness to condemn racism and racial injustice, but did not feel
particularly responsible for the long history of black oppression. Thus, they did not feel compelled to have their
children participate in busing. A 1994 poll of white Americans showed that these feelings continue; 2/3 of those
polled believed integration improved the quality of education for blacks, yet 2/3 also opposed busing, and a
majority of whites polled said they would move out of their current neighborhood if it became more than 20%
black. A recent scholar called this the integration paradox, where most Americans support the principles of
equality and school diversity, but oppose the methods needed to do so. By many measures, Americans schools
are as segregated today as before Brown in 1954. And because only a small number of whites were left in urban
school districts by 1980, debates over busing and desegregation were effectively pointless.

Photos 1 and 2. Police Escort a Boston school bus, 1974. Violence outside a Boston Anti-busing rally, 1976.
(Sources: www.bppa.net/events/dec03/forman1.jpg)

What is busing? Why did supporters of busing feel it was necessary?

In photo 1, why might police be escorting a Boston school bus involved in busing black and white
students?
Traditionally, Boston was a Democratic stronghold, but photos 1 and 2 are symbolic of strains in the
traditional Democratic Coalition. In particular, many ethnic whites (such as Irish and Italians) felt that
busing was an example of a civil rights movement that had gone too far. Why did they oppose busing?
Some scholars have noted that white flight (whites leaving the central cities) actually began long
before the civil rights events of the 1960s and 1970s, and started when blacks migrated to Northern
cities and into white neighborhoods after WWII in search of jobs. How did busing intensify this
movement of white flight?
One suburban mother who opposed busing asked, How in the Heavens name do you think you are
going to force me to send my little girl into an areathat I wouldnt even drive through in broad
daylight with locked doors and a gun? In your opinion, was her opposition to busing racist? Explain.
What is the integration paradox?
In your opinion, does Brown v. Board of Education mean that all segregation must end? Or just legal
segregation?
 ISSUE #4: Taxes
The Taxpayers Revolt (1978)

Throughout the 1970s, economic indicators in the United States suggested an end to the postwar
prosperity of the 1950s and 1960s. For the first time, inflation and unemployment were rising simultaneously
(coined stagflation), and gasoline shortages plagued the nation following an oil embargo in 1973. Richard
Nixons Watergate scandal, and the deceptions of several Presidents in Vietnam, also made the public cynical
about the role of the government. By the late 1970s, rising property taxes and increased frustration with big
government led California voters to pass a major anti-tax initiative, called Proposition 13. Led by anti-tax
activist Howard Jarvis, the initiative would limit property taxes on homes, and it was endorsed (supported) by
many conservative organizations. Proposition 13 was also opposed by virtually all Democratic and liberal
leaning organizations (civil rights groups, organized labor, teachers unions, etc.), who worried that cutting
property taxes would limit the ability of government to perform certain functions, such as funding schools and
delivering social programs to the needy.
In 1978 Proposition 13 passed overwhelmingly by a margin of 65% to 35% in California. Howard
Jarvis became a hero to many economic conservatives, and he pushed additional anti-tax measures in California
and elsewhere. Dozens of states passed similar anti-tax measures over the next few years, revealing a growing
negative perception of government and an increasing reluctance of taxpayers to fund social programs. Scholars
have described Proposition 13 as a suburban rebellion that shows the retreat from the Great Society liberalism
of the previous decade. Evidence also suggests there were other reasons voters approved Proposition 13. If
property taxes were cut, it would limit the ability of schools to engage in the busing of students to achieve
racial integration, which was extremely unpopular in suburban California neighborhoods. A letter to the editor
in a local California newspaper reveals this possibility:

through passage of the Jarvis amendment [Proposition 13] our children will not board buses, as there
will be no funds for buses. You can rest assured that the state will then budget their money wisely and
will see to it that our schools remain open with enough money for education and not buses (Valley
News, 2/5/1978)

Proposition 13 is seen as a major event in the growing conservative revival in the United States, as it
brought together both social and economic conservatives. Historian Kevin Phillips calls in a milestone in the
birth of the New Right, leading to a growing anti-tax and small government movement across the United States.
Because Proposition 13 did best in suburban neighborhoods, it is also seen as a growing indication of the
increasing political conservatism of those regions. In suburban neighborhoods, the defense of the home and the
family were often the motivation for defeating busing and taxation measures.

What was the economic situation like in the US in 1970?

What was Proposition 13?
Why did some groups support it? Why did some groups oppose it?
Howard Jarvis once said he wanted to shrink government to the size where it
could drown in a bathtub. What do you think he meant by this statement?
If property taxes are cut, local and state governments and local schools have
to offer fewer social services (such as busing and programs to the poor).
Might this have been a motivation for many who voted for Proposition 13? Explain.
Why was Proposition 13 so important to the rising conservative movement?
 ISSUE #5: Gender in the 1970s
The Equal Rights Amendment

The modern fight for gender equality, which began with the publication of The Feminine Mystique in
1963 and the formation of the National Organization for Women (NOW) in 1966, emerged as a major social
force in the 1970s. Of all the social justice movements that began in the 1960s, the one that seemed to have the
most strength in the 1970s was the movement for womens liberation. In that decade, membership in NOW
soared to over 48,000, Helen Reddys song I am Woman (Hear me Roar) was a popular radio hit, and Gloria
Steinum founded Ms. Magazine. In 1973, the Supreme Court struck down legal restrictions to abortion in Roe v.
Wade, and the womens movement (often called womens lib for short) seemed to be gathering strength as the
decade progressed. It was during this time that the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution, which was
originally introduced in 1923, began to gain mainstream support.
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was intended to prohibit discrimination based on sex and was
intended to guarantee gender equality. In 1970 the Citizens' Advisory Council on the Status of Women drew up
a resolution supporting the amendment, and the ERA easily passed Congress in 1972. But the drive to get the
amendment ratified (approved) by the required thirty-eight states became a struggle. Even though the ERA was
endorsed by Republican presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, a counter-ERA movement emerged to
defeat the amendment. Led by conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly, it focused on preventing ratification in the
remaining 15 states. Conservatives argued the ERA could undermine legal protections women enjoy (such as
restrictions from combat), and could threaten the traditional American family. Trudy Camping, an Arizona state
legislator, outlined her opposition to the amendment:

The danger in the Equal Rights Amendment is its potential to radically change established,
time-proven family and sexual relationships. Something as basic as the American family cannot be
altered without some expectation of profound disturbances of the Nations foundation. No one can deny
the need for equality between men and women, but the ERA is not the way to achieve it.

Thirty-five states ratified the ERA by 1975, but that is where the amendment stalled. By 1979 several
states even rescinded (took back) their earlier approval. The opposition to the ERA from conservative women
showed a growing backlash against the womens liberation movement. Many moderate and conservative
Americans had formed the opinion that womens liberation brought unwelcome social and cultural changes.
This included the stereotype of the bra-burning and man-hating womens libbers. Although the deadline to
approve the ERA was pushed back to 1982, additional states could not be persuaded to support the amendment,
and the ERA was effectively dead. The National Organization for Women (NOW) stated that it would
concentrate on electing women to state and federal legislatures before reviving the ERA at some later point.

Photo 1. Betty Friedan, a founder of NOW Photo 2. Phyllis Schlafly, STOP ERA Rally (1978)
1970 March for Womens Equality, New York City
Figure 3. Map of ERA ratification (source: Encyclopedia Britanica)

What was the Equal Rights Amendment?

Why groups supported it? What groups opposed it?
Who was Phyllis Schlafly? What role did she play in the ERA struggle?
In particular, why did opposition from women undermine the ERAs chances for ratification?
Using the above map, did most states approve of the Equal Rights Amendment? About how many?
What states and regions of the country did not ratify the amendment? Why might that be?
Some scholars have argued that the fight against the ERA gave new life to the conservative movement,
especially after the Watergate scandal. Why would they say this?
 ISSUE #6: Popular Culture
Music and Film in the 1970s

Popular culture music, books, and films certainly changed as a result of the social movements of
the1960s, with depictions of sex, violence, and drug use much more commonplace. Hunter S. Thompsons
novel Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1971) told the story of a crazy, drug-filled weekend in sin city. Music
continued to push boundaries, as new genres, such as disco and punk rock, challenged the status quo. Initially
coming out of New Yorks gay dance clubs in the early 1970s, disco crossed over into the American
mainstream, and was the subject of a popular feature film, Saturday Night Fever (1977). In the late 1970s, punk
rock, with its aggressive sound and anti-social lyrics, shocked and offended mainstream tastes. British bands
such as the Sex Pistols and The Clash were popular, as were American punk rock bands such as The Ramones.
Film and TV were also a reflection of changes in American society. Coming at a time when data
showed increased crime rates, widespread drug use, and rising family breakdown, a slew of popular films
suggested some simplistic solutions. In Dirty Harry (1971), Clint Eastwood played a tough San Francisco Cop
who pursues a hippy psycho on a killing spree. Despite being caught, the killer is released after Harry searches
him without a warrant, which was in violation of a recent liberal Supreme Court ruling. In Death Wish
(1974), Charles Bronson goes after a gang of drug-crazed criminals who murdered his wife. Described as a
bleeding heart liberal at the start of the film, Bronson changes his ways by taking matters into his own hands,
and doing the job that the police and courts wont do. Critics complained that films like these played into white
fears of urban violence (many of the criminals were non-white) and endorsed simplified, and bigoted
solutions to complex problems. On TV, All in the Family (1971-1979) portrayed a family trying to cope with
the strains between a rapidly changing America. Archie Bunker played the role of the conservative white father
frustrated with the liberal changes around him, and he seemed to epitomize the silent American that Richard
Nixon often invoked. In this excerpt from the show Archie Bunker seemed to be providing commentary about
liberal attitudes towards crime and the criminally accused:

If society is at fault that we got killers running around murdering innocent people, then it's simple. We
turn the killer loose, give him a pension for life and shoot the rest of the city. If you liberals keep gettin'
your way - we're all gonna hear one big loud flush. The sound of the U.S. of A. goin' straight down the
toilet.

Other films and TV shows reflected the changing roles of women. The Mary Tyler Moore Show
(1970-1977) depicted a single women struggling to have her own career. At a time when more women were
pursuing jobs, this show symbolized the changing roles of women and the growing feminist movement. On the
other side of that topic, The Stepford Wives (1975) suggested that the perfect wife was a robot who did
housework and was focused solely on pleasing her husband.

Photo 1. Dirty Harry Photo 2. Archie Bunker from All in the Family
(source: www.sensesofcinema.com) (source: www.tvland.com)
Photo 3. Saturday Night Fever (1977) Photo 4. The Ramones (1976)
Source: www.regencymovies.com Source: www.animalboys.com

Photo 5. The Stepford Wives (1975)

Source: www.bergen-filmklubb.no/images/The_Stepford_Wives

How was music changing in the 1970s (refer to photos 3 and 4)? How might mainstream Americans
have reacted to such trends?
Referring to photo 1 and the text, how did the films Dirty Harry and Death Wish treat criminal justice
matters? Does this show a conservative approach to fighting crime?
Should Dirty Harry, a cop who ignores Supreme Court rulings he disagrees with, or Charlie, who seeks
justice outside the system, be seen as heroes? Why or why not?
How was Archie Bunker (from All in the Family) symbolic of growing conservative attitudes?
Write down three observations about the women in photo 5. Why do the women in The Stepford Wives
appear to be so happy?
Is The Stepford Wives a feminist film? What about the Mary Tyler More Show?
What may have been the hidden message in The Stepford Wives?
 ISSUE #7: Identity Politics
Gays and Lesbians

The 1970s is sometimes known as the Rights Revolution for all the different groups that mobilized
and pursued political reform during the decade. After the Civil Rights movements in the 1960s, many newer
groups became organized and borrowed the tactics that blacks used to fight for their equality. In the 1970s
groups as diverse as the mentally ill, the handicapped, the elderly (who formed the Grey Panthers),
consumers, environmentalists, and gays and lesbians pressed for legal equality. Supporters of these movements
saw a need to continue the struggle for social justice, while critics saw the further splintering of American
society and the rise of identity politics. Of course, not all activist groups were on the left side of the
political spectrum, as Christian conservatives, anti-tax activists, and parents organizations mobilized as well. In
fact, the activism of one group often led directly to the creation of another organization of activists to oppose it.
The more assertive the gay liberation movement became, for example, the more they became a target of
opposition from groups on the right.
Gays and Lesbians were expected to keep their sexuality and practices underground, especially in the
socially conservative 1950s. Following the sexual revolution in the 1960s, however, discussions of sexuality
(including homosexuality) became more commonplace in America. In 1969, gays and lesbians battled New
York police at the Stonewall Inn, which energized their movement and brought gays a certain amount of
visibility. As gays and lesbians became more prominent in public life, many refused to accept their second-class
status, and public opinion began to change. Gay and lesbians activists wanted to change laws that allowed
discrimination based on sexual orientation, defined homosexuality as a disease, and criminalized homosexual
conduct. The movement picked up substantial momentum in the 1970s, leading to many cities passing
anti-discrimination laws, and San Francisco even elected an openly gay city supervisor, Harvey Milk (who was
later assassinated by an anti-gay city supervisor).
The movement also generated a sustained counterattack, particularly from conservative religious and
family organizations. They saw homosexuality as immoral and promoting an anti-family agenda, and feared that
gays and lesbians would try to lure children into an alternative lifestyle if homosexuality were legally
protected. Several groups organized against efforts to change discrimination laws, and most stressed the need to
defend the family. Anita Bryant, a singer and former Miss America, organized the Save Our Children
organization in Florida in 1977, and led a successful effort to repeal a city anti-discrimination law. In
opposition she said:

As a mother, I know that homosexuals cannot biologically reproduce children; therefore, they must
recruit our children

In California, a 1978 ballot initiative that would have banned homosexual teachers from working in the public
schools failed, although it did gather 42% support from state voters. A backer of the initiative, the Reverend
Louis Sheldon of Anaheim, formed the Traditional Values Coalition, an activist network opposed to gay
rights, which soon claimed 31,000 evangelical churches as nationwide members.
By the end of the decade, religious conservatives had become more active and visible in national
politics, and many religious leaders politicized churchgoers around social issues like abortion and gay rights.
Unlike earlier civil rights movements, which had a certain degree of mainstream political support, the gay
liberation movement had far fewer allies. Many scholars even date the arrival of the religious right on the
American political scene to efforts to stop gay activism. By the end of the decade public opinion polls showed
that a majority of Americans felt gays and lesbians should have equal job opportunities, but polls also showed a
majority of Americans were against allowing gays to marry or adopt children.
Photo 1. Gay Rights March, New York City, 1970 Photo 2. Anita Bryant, Save Our Children (1977)
Source: www.newyorkphotoblog.org Source: academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu

What were some of the different identity movements that formed in the 1970s?
What did the gay and lesbian movement hope to accomplish?
Religious and family activists, in particular, protested that the gay rights movement threatened the
foundation of the American family. Why?
In photo 2, who was Anita Bryant? What did her organization hope to do?
Why do you think many Americans - who supported basic civil rights for women and racial minorities
were uncomfortable with such efforts for gays and lesbians?
The various identity movements of the 1970s, provoked activism from other groups, who then
became movements of their own (such as Christian fundamentalists, conservative womens
organizations, pro-family groups, etc.). Briefly explain how this happened.
Some states, such as California, attempted to bar gays and lesbians from certain jobs, such as public
school teachers. In your opinion, should gays and lesbians be denied certain job opportunities?
 Issue #8: Race and Affirmative Action

Like busing, affirmative action was another remedy civil rights advocates said was needed to achieve
true racial equality. Affirmative action programs were designed to give minority groups who were targets of
historical discrimination. such as Hispanics, African Americans, American Indians, and women support in
getting jobs and getting into college. Liberals and other supporters of affirmative action said the policy would
create more racial diversity in the United States, and would help address past wrongs. Conservatives attacked
affirmative action as reverse discrimination, since they felt it violated the Constitution by showing preference
to members of a particular racial or gender group. Many moderate Americans, who had supported the civil
rights movement, wondered how the color-blindness sought in the 1950s and 1960s had become race
consciousness by the 1970s. For these Americans, black militancy, affirmative action, and forced busing were
part of a civil rights movement that had now gone too far.
In 1973, Alan Bakke (a white male) was denied admission to the UC Davis Medical School. After
being rejected again in 1974, Bakke found out that his test scores were significantly higher than minority
applicants who were admitted under a special admissions program to help the disadvantaged. Allan Bakke
then became a symbol for the growing number of whites who felt they had lost a job or a promotion to a
minority because of affirmative action. Bakke filed a lawsuit charging that his equal protection rights under
the 14th Amendment had been violated. Bakke alleged that a racial quota system (strict numerical targets for
racial minorities) had been used to admit less qualified applicants. In 1978, the Supreme Court ruled in UC
Regents v. Bakke that racial quotas could not be used in college admissions, but that race could be considered
as a plus factor in jobs, contracts, and university admissions. Bakke was admitted to the medical school, but
the Supreme Court did not strike down affirmative action (only the use of quotas). The Supreme Court
attempted to find a compromise on the volatile issue of affirmative actions, but in doing so made both critics
and supporters of the policy upset. Since affirmative action was not declared unconstitutional, it gave
conservatives another issue to rally around. And since the practice of affirmative action was now limited in
practice, supporters of the policy were frustrated that the court seemed to be moving in a more conservative
direction on race.
Since the Bakke decision in 1978, the Supreme Court has heard more than a dozen cases on
affirmative action. While the Supreme Court has not completely struck down the policy, it has narrowed the
application of affirmative action. Several states have also passed initiatives to ban the use of affirmative action
in state institutions. In 1996, Californias Proposition 209 passed, which prohibited the use of race or gender in
state institutions (such as colleges.) Minority enrollment within the University of California system has
decreased since then, and supporters of affirmative action charge that Prop 209 is a step backwards on civil
rights. Supporters of Prop 209 note that minority graduation rates have actually increased in the UC system
since Proposition 209, in part because only qualified members of racial groups are now being admitted.

Photo 1: Protestor in support of Photo 2: Alan Bakke

Affirmative action (source: pbs.org) (source:pbs.org)
 What is affirmative action?
Why do supporters of affirmative action feel it is necessary?
Critics of affirmative action call the procedures reverse racism and reverse discrimination. What did
they mean by this?
Why might people who had supported civil rights measures (such as voting rights and ending legal
segregation) not support affirmative action?
What did the Bakke decision say?
What is Californias Proposition 209? What effect has it had on the University of California system? Is
this positive or negative in your opinion?
 ISSUE #9: Changing Demographics
The Sunbelt Shift

By the end of the 1970s, it was clear that conservatives once again had the political momentum on
their side. Controversial social issues such as abortion, affirmative action, busing, and gay rights had mobilized
religious and cultural conservatives. Economic conservatives were mobilized by tax-cutting measures such as
Proposition 13. Demographic trends seemed to favor conservatives as well, as traditionally liberal parts of the
United States were losing population (called the rustbelt), while conservative and suburban regions were
rapidly gaining population. The rise of the New Right and modern conservative movement closely followed
the population flow from the Northeast and Midwest to the South and Southwest. The shift toward the
sunbelt region has had major political implications on the United States, and many historians locate the birth
of the modern conservative movement within these states.
The Sunbelt refers to the warmer states below the 37th parallel (see map). In addition to the attractive
climate, Sunbelt states offered newer suburban neighborhoods, nicer schools, close access to shopping malls
and freeways, more open land, and better economic opportunities. White movement to the suburbs accelerated
after World War II, and at the same time, blacks continued to migrate from South into Americas Northern
cities. As a result, cities became increasingly concentrated with non-white residents, while suburbs continued to
be almost entirely white. One scholar referred to the growing urban/suburban divide as Americas very own
Berlin Wall, in that it separated the well-off from the poor, and the white from the non-white.
Politically, most suburban residents questioned the need for higher taxes to support government
welfare programs, and opposed property taxes that threatened their home values. Many suburbanites also
worried that busing (mixing white and black students to achieve racial equality) could hurt the quality of their
local schools, and defended their right to keep their son or daughter close to home. Since most suburban
residents had families with children, they were also concerned with crime, pornography, and other threats to the
family. Suburban residents were also generally more religious, and many suburban churches were part of the
growing religious right movement in the United States. The three general characteristics of suburban
residents homeowner, taxpayer, and schoolparent were powerful forces in shaping suburban political views.
One economic consequence of the Sunbelt and suburban shift was that businesses also moved in this
direction, taking jobs and tax dollars out of the cities. As a result, unemployment and poverty in urban areas
intensified, and most cities became dominated by racial minorities and the poor who could not afford to move to
the suburbs. Commentators spoke of a growing urban crisis in America, since most cities lacked good jobs,
good schools, or the tax revenues necessary to provide social programs. Problems in the inner cities including
drugs, gangs, high school drop-outs, and teenage pregnancy also began to grow.
Figure 1

Photos 2 and 3. Urban decay in the South Bronx, New York City. 1985
(source: www.affordablehousinginstitute.org/blogs/us/S...)

What factors in the 1970s energized conservatives?

What is the Sunbelt? What is the rustbelt?
Using the map in figure 1, which 3 states gained the most population in the 1970s?
Which 3 states lost the most population in the 1970s?
Why were suburban Sunbelt residents generally more conservative? (the 37th parallel represents the
sunbelt division)
How does the map support the growing conservative movement in the United States? Explain.
Describe the urban crisis by using photos 2 and 3. What was happening to urban areas in the 1970s?
Ironically, the Sunbelt states received more government subsidies through highways, housing loans, and
federal defense spending, but also had the most resentment toward the federal government and federal
taxation policies. Why might this be?
 1970s Chart: Complete the following based on the activity

Event or Issue Description How does this show conservatives rising?

1. Hard Hat Rebellion
2. Abortion
3. Busing
4. Taxpayers Revolt
5. ERA
6. Popular Culture
7. Gay & Lesbian Politics
8. Affirmative Action
9. Sunbelt Shift