Ronald Reagan was an odd choice for evangelicals. For one, he and his wife regularly consulted a medium. He was a Hollywood actor, which should have put him at odds with fundamentalists. Also, Christians have a long history of charity and compassion, while Reagan’s policies cut aid to poor people. But in 1980, a lot of evangelicals turned to the Republican Party to vote for him over the evangelical Jimmy Carter. What happened?
Reagan’s endorsement of evangelicals at the Religious Roundtable
Jimmy Carter gave audience to evangelical audiences, though not in the same way as Reagan. Carter told people to conserve, while Reagan’s optimistic consumerism played to the rising prosperity gospel. Reagan delivered his famous endorsement of evangelicals at the Religious Roundtable, while Carter was suspiciously absent. Also, evangelicals have built up a strong craving for leaders. They love a strongman leader. So when Reagan showed up and promised to be tough, they went for him.
Today, we’re examining some of the reasons that Reagan became a favorite of evangelicals. And why… maybe that doesn’t make sense. Our guest for this episode is author and historian Rick Perlstein.
1977 marked the beginning of the Religious Right and women lit the flame.
The National Women’s Conference was set to take place. State meetings were overrun by conservative women causing disruptions to the meetings as they paid the entrance fee with pennies or made noises during the discussions. But liberal women were not angels either. Some went so far as to accuse the conservatives of sending in mental patients to do their voting.
It’s easy in all of the noise to forget that this was a monumental meeting. Women from all over the country gathered together to discuss issues that impacted them. They ran the show. They set the agenda. Conservative women, by and large, didn’t show up for the main meeting. Why? Because of conspiracy theories circulated by groups led by people like Phyllis Schlafly saying that the elections would be rigged. Also, they started their own conference across town.
The Religious Conference that Started the Pro-Family, Pro-Life Movement
This pro-life, pro-family rally was only about three hours long. But it packed a big punch. People from all over the country took busses overnight to attend. They couldn’t stay the night because hotels were already booked up for the main meeting. So they came and went on the same day, taking the pro-family, pro-life movement with them.
It also came across as a mark against Carter on all sides. Conservatives disliked that the conference happened on his watch and that his wife attended. Liberals were upset because he fired Bella Abzug after the group badmouthed him in the press. Carter, as usual, was in a no-win situation.
In this episode, Chris winds up a three-part mini-series that takes us from Phyllis Schlafly’s turn against the ERA to this momentous weekend in 1977. The fallout of the conference is still with us today as religious people on the right work together to accomplish their goals, often trying to undo what liberals on the far left have already done. Extremes continue to snipe at extremes as the middle tries to get things done. 1977 marked the beginning of the Religious Right and women lit the flame.
Our guest for this episode is Marjorie Spruill, author of the book Divided We Stand. It is an excellent resource that is balanced and well-notated.
NBC’s coverage of Phyllis Schlafly’s funeral with Donald Trump’s eulogy
Discussion Questions:
What were some positive outcomes of the National Women’s Year conference?
What were some challenges they faced?
Why did conservatives feel shut out of the conference?
What do you think about the role of conspiracy theories in conservative circles (example: Schlafly’s insistence that the meeting votes were rigged)?
Schlafly was overlooked in the Reagan administration. Why do you think that is?
Why is it so hard for people of different beliefs to work together, even for the common good?
What do you think would have happened if the IWY conference had not featured lesbian rights? Should it have avoided that controversial topic, or was it an issue whose moment had come?
