Interview with Michelle Easton

Easton, Michelle ; McKiernan, Stephen

Michelle Easton is the president and the founder of the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute. She was appointed to a position at the U.S. Department of Education and previously served as the President of the State Board of Education in Virginia. Easton received her Bachelor's degree in Development Psychology from Briarcliff College in New York and graduated law school at American University's Washington School of Law.

2010-06-29

In copyright

2018-03-29

McKiernan Interviews

122:19

McKiernan Interviews
Interview with: Michelle Easton
Interviewed by: Stephen McKiernan
Transcriber: REV
Date of interview: 29 June 2010
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Start of Interview)

SM:
Well, I have to keep checking this too, to make sure it is going. So, I guess the first question I always ask is, describe a little bit about your upbringing, your growing up years, the influence of your parents, the high school years and the college years. What helped make you who you are, basically, from the early years?

ME:
I was born in Philadelphia, where my father was attending the University of Pennsylvania. When I was six months old, my father was recalled in the US Naval Reserve and sent to Alaska. And as soon as the doctor allowed, my mother took me and the other two siblings at that point to Seward, Alaska for three and a half years. I was real little. I do not remember much. I think I remember mostly the pictures. But I feel this kinship with Sarah Palin, because when I read her book Going Rogue, her love of Alaska, it was like mom and dad talking. They loved it so much. They would have stayed after Daddy got out of the Navy, but it was not even a state. They did not have schools. It was very, very primitive. But they loved the land and loved the people. So, then we came back to Philly. Daddy got a job in New York City, and I started school in Rye, New York. A wonderful little K-6. What you have to pay 25,000 for now in a private school. It was a time when most parents shared values. There were not all these controversies in school. And the emphasis was English, math, science, history, but a little bit of music, a little bit of art, and a little bit of PE. Life was simpler then. Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, mother was home, daddy worked. There was one more sister after, so there were three girls and a boy in the family. It was the era when dad worked, and mom took care of the kids. Dad continued Naval reserve, so he was gone one or two nights a week for that. He continued his education, getting very close to a PhD at NYU, but in the end, none of his professors spoke English, he could not understand them, and he did not get it. Wonderful, solid, all-American kind of family life. Ups and downs, always, ups and downs. But grandparents coming by once or twice a year, and aunts and uncles, lots of friends. Life centered around school and church and neighborhood.

SM:
Were there any teachers? I found that some people there is somebody who... You always hope when you are a young person, that there is somebody that takes an interest in you beyond your parents, whether it be a minister in your church or a preacher, rabbi, or whatever, or a teacher that sees you and kind of guides you, inspires you. Were there any teachers in your life, either in high school or at Briar Cliff?

ME:
Actually, the teachers I remember the most are elementary school. They were these wonderful, for the most part, maiden ladies whose lives back then were devoted to their jobs, and they were very serious about every child learning and being the very best educated they could be. Junior high school, I remember as almost a total waste until ninth grade, when they put children of equal ability in classes, because they took six elementary schools, the children of very widely varying ability and children could not read with seventh graders that were a 10th grade level. This was the modern notion that we will mix all the kids together, and then they will all learn from each other, but it does not work that way. If some children are so far ahead of others, they just have to drag along and do nothing. So that was a total waste. But then by ninth grade, they started to put us into class according to abilities. Went to a good public high school, Port Chester High School, where you could be a serious student if you wanted. Back then in New York State, we had very rigorous Regents Examinations.

SM:
Yeah, I am from New York State.

ME:
I remember getting a 90 in English in 11th grade, that was when they gave you English, and being so proud. That really meant that you knew your English. It was before exams were dumbed down and everybody did well. And it was a good high school. There were kids who were serious about school. Some of them were interested in sports. Some were only interested in sports. There was hoods, the bad kids back then. I graduated in (19)68. The hoods. But even then, the hoods did not use four letter words and curse out the teachers, it was just a tougher kind of group. And there was a huge group that did vocational education. They were not going to be able to go on to higher education, so they learned to be secretaries or auto mechanics. It was simpler. It was simpler. And I grew up in a family where my dad said, socially, there is two kinds of girls, those who do and those who do not. You can decide what kind you want to be. And most guys want to marry girls who do not, so it was not so complex. The popular culture was not such a huge influence like it is on the kids today. And then I went off to Briar Cliff, a woman's college. To be honest, I probably would have gone to Colby in Maine, I loved Maine, or a co-ed school somewhere, but my father thought that would be better for me because I would be close to home. It was all girls. It was a good program. And turned out he was right. And since I have learned that a lot of women who later have become leaders in different ways went to all girls’ schools. It is one less thing for girls to be worrying about. You go out on the weekend, and you have your social life, but I am a big fan of single sex education for those who want it. Not everybody. Not everybody. But of course, the government has tried to abolish it at VMI and the boys and the girls’ schools when the government's involved in anyway.

SM:
When did you know that you were going... We define women sometimes as being liberal or conservative. When did you know you were a conservative? Was there something that was happening in the world or in America that turned you a certain direction?

ME:
It was when Goldwater ran for president in 1964, and I was 14. It was really the first time my family had gotten involved in politics. My father, having come from a military background, tend to, at least they used to, step out of politics and be sort of neutral. But my mother and father were so excited that here was this man running for president who was articulating the things they felt about too much government taxes, worries about Social Security going bankrupt, worries about us not being strong enough militarily, basically libertarian economic policy and a sensible foreign policy, that is what Goldwater was. And of course, back then you had no talk radio. There were a couple in New York mom used to listen to, but you did not have Rush, you did not have Sean, you did not have Fox News, you did not have the internet, you did not have drudge. And really Goldwater running was the first time for a lot of Americans that they began to hear some of these conservative ideas. The campaign itself was an education. And of course, he lost quite badly, but it was really the start, I think, of the modern conservative movement, which has been most all my personal and professional life since then.

SM:
I still remember that being on TV, because I was always watching the... Actually, from (19)52 on, I was a little boy, I watched all these conventions. But I remember the battle between Barry Goldwater and Nelson Rockefeller and Governor Scranton of Pennsylvania. You saw within the Republican party the split, liberal/conservative.

ME:
Right. You did. And it remains in a way today, but not nearly as much. I mean, most Republicans are conservative, or pretend to be.

SM:
One of the things... I wrote this down here. What was it about your early years where you recognized conservative women were placed at the back burner as opposed to liberal women? What was the magic moment, so to speak of, when you knew that people who thought more conservatively were not getting the ear that liberal women were getting, or the breaks or whatever? Was there some incident?

ME:
Well, I think it was more cumulative. When I came to Washington in 1973, and it was to work for Young Americans for Freedom, [inaudible] the successors of that now. And I was conservative in a traditional philosophical sort of way, but I started to notice how the media especially, and the popular culture, gave all these praise to women's groups like the National Organization for Women and other groups later, The Feminist Majority, but they did not represent all women, they only represented left wing feminists, sometimes radical feminists, sometimes socialist views. How come they were called the women's groups when here I was, this conservative woman, working so hard? Who represented me? And to this day, you could probably open the Washington Post one day this week, and it will say, " So-and-so is very concerned about women's issues, blah, blah," and then they start to list all these left-wing positions on everything from taxes and daycare and right to life and whatever. That has stuck to this day. So, for me, I think it was going to college, coming to town, beginning to work my professional life, and hearing about the women's groups and what they thought. But it was not all women, it was only liberal left-wing women.

SM:
Were there any conservative women's groups at that time?

ME:
Well, there were a couple, but they were not as well known, certainly, and they did not get much coverage in the media. But I guess Phyllis Schlafly had begun her Eagle Forum.

SM:
The Eagle Forum, right.

ME:
That was a key one. And of course, there were many religiously oriented conservative groups within churches and denominations, but not really. And so that is how somehow, shooting ahead 20 years after I came here, 1993, when I founded this institute after having served President Reagan and the first President Bush, what is the real need? What is the real need in America? Well, it was to have an organization. And by that time, there were a couple of others that represented and promoted and celebrated these great conservative women leaders, some of whom you have at The Calendar, and used them as role models for young women. When I was in college, there were no conservative role models, except within my family, or perhaps within the church. Clare Boothe Luce was out there, but there is so many outstanding conservative women leaders who were never celebrated, who were never highlighted, who were never given as role models, and still are not in 99.9 percent of the universities, the women's studies programs. Come on, it is not women, it is liberal women. It is feminist women. It is radical socialist women It is not conservative women. They never study any of these women. They do not read the books of Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin, they do not have Bay Buchanan come. That is why we exist. We send them to a campus so that a different point of view can be heard.

SM:
Just like the Young American [inaudible].

ME:
Right. Our focus is solely women, there is-is more general. So, I do not know if that is a magic moment, but it was like, hey, wait a minute, these are the women's groups? They do not represent me. They do not represent the people I know, the people I work with, people in my family, people in my church. How do they get away with being called the women's groups? And it happens to this day.

SM:
That is a magic moment. Because you realized from your early experiences coming here, and I am going to ask you more questions about the Young Americas Foundation. Not Young Americas Foundation, the-

ME:
Young Americas for Freedom.

SM:
Yeah, Young Americas for Freedom.

ME:
[foreign language].

SM:
Because Lee Edwards, who I interviewed a couple years back, said this group has been excluded from the history books in many respects in terms of the anti-war movement, because they were conservative, but they were against the war. And it is all about SDS. It is about the Weathermen.

ME:
We were against the draft. The service did not believe it.

SM:
I have some questions about that coming up, but I think it is important that when you were young, you saw something that was lacking, and this is a great experience for young people, and it inspired you to create something.

ME:
It is really true. And it reflected how lonely it could be as a young conservative woman on campus, and then even coming to town. I had lots of friends and lots of people promoting me in different ways, but not as a woman. The women's groups let you know in every way possible if you want to be successful, and they do this to the girls at school, I think, in some ways, in colleges, you either need to be liberal or you need to be quiet. And when you see the treatment of some of the conservative women, the way they scorn culture, the way they mock Palin, the way they put down Michelle Malkin, the way they sneer at Michele Bachmann, the congresswoman from Minnesota. Not much has changed.

SM:
One of the things when I interviewed Phyllis Schlafly at the CPAC Conference, she gave me graciously an hour. I know she as very tired, but-

ME:
Look in the middle.

SM:
Yep, there she is.

ME:
She speaks for us sometimes too. She is 85. Look at that. Isn’t that amazing? 85, there amongst the 20, 30-year-olds, holding her own.

SM:
I think what was interesting is at CPAC she was very tired. I do not know if you noticed it.

ME:
She was tired.

SM:
I asked her assistant, said, "Yeah, this has been very tiring for her this time."

ME:
She had-had an accident about two CPACs ago, and she had fallen right before it and broken her hip. But she recovered very-very quickly.

SM:
Well, one of the things she said to me, she said, "The troublemakers of the (19)60s and early (19)70s are now running today's universities. They are running the women's studies, Black studies, gay and lesbian studies, Asian studies, Native American studies, and environmental studies." She was making reference that all of these studies are basically run by liberals. You believe that?

ME:
I do. I believe they are a way to promote liberal and left-wing ideas. And it is the way they use women, women's issues, they use women as a cover to promote left wing and liberal ideas. It does not have much to do with women at all, it is really sort of a dishonest thing that they do.

SM:
When we talk about the movements, we all know about the civil rights movement that was in the (19)50s and the (19)60s, and it was kind of a role model for all the other movements, and the anti-war movement too. Even Gaylord Nelson, when he was alive, when I interviewed him, said that the civil rights movement was the role model for us in terms of the teachings. The anti-war movement also helped. But what are your thoughts on all these movements that kind of evolved at the end of the (19)60s and early (19)70s? The women was based on sexism, because women were not treated equally in civil rights or basically hardly any of these movements were they treated equally. And are conservative women, and conservatives as a whole, linked, maybe not to now, but in any of these other movements?

ME:
I guess I would perhaps dispute that the woman's movement was based on sex discrimination and equality and law. I believe the suffragette movement, the original suffragettes, were seeking equality under the law so that men received the same rights as women. And what a tremendous success that has been. But I think in the (19)60s, as I was coming of age, what happened is that original movement for equity under the law shifted. I mean, there was an anti-war movement, there was an anti-government mood, and it shifted this woman's movement from basically what we had achieved, which was equal rights under the law, not that it's perfection, but it is the best place in the world for that, to this feminist, which was a sort of an anti-male, a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle, anti-American, anti-free enterprise for sure, and that was the liberalism and the leftism and the socialism, and anti-religious, all religious people are hypocrites and bigots. It shifted the original suffragette movement, which was in fact about equity under the law, to this really left-wing movement, which was just developing when I was in college in (19)68 to (19)72. I do not know if you remember, but I remember the early feminists, the radical feminists, the thing was to take off their bras and burn them. Bra burners. Remember that?

SM:
I remember there was something in a Miss America Contest in Atlantic City.

ME:
They protested the beauty pageants because it objectified women, as if they are discussing plays like the Vagina Monologues do not objectify women. But beauty pageants were just an absolute no-no. So did the Barbie thing, too. The Barbie doll we were talking about. The Barbie doll, she is just too slim and attractive, and this is harmful to little girl's psyches. I mean, just this absurd stuff. I mean, you hear Sarah Palin talking about the beauty... she said, "Hey, it got me scholarships." She was from a poor family. She had to work her way through college. She was beautiful to boot. But the whole feminist movement shifted from the original suffragette. Just everybody nowadays supports equal treatment without discrimination for everybody, regardless of your sex or your race or your religion. So that is one movement that, to me, just morphed into something that was really not representative of most women, although they did suck a fair number of people into this notion that the most important thing as a woman is to take care of yourself and to worry about yourself. And of course, we want to worry about ourselves, but for lots of women, they want to worry about a husband and a family as well. And they said, "Well, that is really secondary to you and yourself." And for some women, they choose that. But for an awful lot of women, they want to have both the opportunities professionally and the opportunities to have a traditional family life.

SM:
It is interesting, I cannot remember who I interviewed, because I have interviewed so many people, I have to look at the transcripts, but I can remember one speaker mentioning that growing up in the (19)50s, women, the housewives, really were not fulfilled deep down inside because they gave up everything to raise a family. And even though they never said anything. Some were secretaries or whatever, and then they just went home and raised a family, and they could not use their skills or whatever beyond, so basically, they never spoke about it, and they kept it hidden. So, we are talking about boomers' parents now, who are now in their (19)80s or passing away.

ME:
Well, I know Betty Friedan wrote about that. What was her book called?

SM:
The Feminine Mystique.

ME:
Yes. And how it was so godawful to be home with children, you need to throw off the bonds and go do whatever. I know from my own family, I know my mother, I know both of my grandmothers, I know my aunts, they loved being home. They loved raising a family. Were there challenges? Of course. The notion that they were so totally dominated by the men in their life, I can tell you, they made it appear that the man made all the decisions, but my mother made a huge number of decisions in our family. But it was something that you presented to the world. "What do you think, Glen?" "Well, you decide that one mom," and say whatever. I am sure there were some women who were unhappy, but there were huge, huge, huge numbers of women who were terribly happy. They devoted their whole lives to their husband and their children, and then they would move on sometime.

SM:
That is my mom.

ME:
My mother had trouble when my baby sister left. It was really empty nest, because she did not have that many outside interests. But she developed a bridge club and this and that. She got more active in different things. But it was really hard. See, I never had that, because I never stopped working. But this notion that they all hated it is just bunk. Some of them probably did. And for them, good for you, get out and do what you want. But life was certainly simpler for a lot of them, because now you have to choose. You have the baby. And I talk to so many young women and, "I do not know what to do. I love my job, but now I do not know, we are going to have a baby, blah, blah, blah." Choices. Well, this is the freedom we wanted so much. We have got it.

SM:
One of the things that I am putting down here, what Phyllis Schlafly told me at my interview with her, also, when you look at the (19)50s, it is kind of defined as more of a conservative vera as opposed to the (19)60s and the (19)70s. And obviously a lot of it has to do with Eisenhower, who was the president, he was like the grandfather figure. Certainly, William Buckley was... God and Man at Yale, which I read a long time ago, it is a great book. But he was starting National Review, and so there were conservative things happening in the United States before President Kennedy came in.

ME:
Russell Kirk wrote The Conservative Mind, which is still read.

SM:
Right. And of course, you talk about Goldwater and the rise of Ronald Reagan in the (19)70s and the (19)80s. And I interviewed Ed Meese too, because I wanted Mr. Meese to talk to me about his work with Ronald Reagan in California, not his presidency, in California. I learned an awful lot from him about those years, about law and order, against the welfare state, and those kinds of things. Can you talk about what happened? We're talking about the end of the war, we are talking about these kinds of major things still happening, that there were a lot of conservatives, that seemed like a conservative era. I do not blame it all on John Kennedy for the change.

ME:
Well, remember, I was...

SM:
...Blame it all on John Kennedy for the change.

ME:
Well, remember I was 10 in 1960, so I was not that much into it until about (19)64. So, the question is what happened then in the (19)50s and (19)60s to energize conservatives?

SM:
Yes.

ME:
I think it was a mix of things. Again, I was a little girl, but I do think that people started to get disturbed about the growth of government. Even back then Goldwater used to talk about the national debt. Lord, is not he turning in his grave looking at our debt right now? I think that, and I have heard people in my family talk about this, when they had the end of World War II and they split up Europe and you had the communists, I do not think that people at the time thought that was forever. And I do not think, from what I read, it was not Churchill. He did not think that was for decades and decades. It was just a way to set things up post-war. I think that Americans were sort of horrified by the oppression. The oppression in communist nations of so many people. This was supposed to be a temporary fix after the war. I think that Buckley starting the National Review was caught on that in both the foreign and in the country. Eisenhower interestingly was a little bit ahead of his time. Do you know he appointed Clare Booth Luce; the first woman ever named to a major ambassadorial post? He named Mrs. Luce our ambassador to Italy. This was the first time. So that was always sort of interesting to me because you always hear about this guy as not much of an exciting guy, but that was really key what he did. And now you look, and of course the ambassadors, many of them are women. The funny thing was that when she went to Italy, she said the first thing she had to do was hire a wife because the ambassador's wife plays such a critical role in running the embassy and the social. So, she hired Letitia Baldridge, who later became a social-

SM:
She has done a book.

ME:
Yes, she has done a lot of books. She loved Mrs. Luce. She is still with us in Washington. And Mr. Luce had by then, sort of semi-retired from time, and he would come and spend six to eight months a year in Italy with her. But she needed a wife. I always loved that. But Eisenhower was smart enough to name a beautiful, smart, philosophically sound woman to a key post like that post-war. I always give him credit for that.

SM:
Yeah, that is interesting about him. I remember the golfing. He would go to Gettysburg and you see that... You have been there. The little three... The little hole he has there.

ME:
And Mamie. Mamie people nowadays sort of snicker at Mamie Eisenhower. But from what I have read and heard; she was a power in that family.

SM:
I always have to check this. What is really amazing about Goldwater too, and this is the thing, I will always remember that here is this man who ran for president in 1964 and got clabbered by Lyndon Johnson, but he was a very distinguished senator. In the end, he and Hugh Scott were the two men that walked into President Nixon's office and said he had to resign.

ME:
Right. Because-

SM:
[inaudible] story.

ME:
...He had integrity.

SM:
Yes.

ME:
He had integrity and that is a rare quality these days. And whether it is people lying about what they are going to do when they get on the Supreme Court or lying about what they are going to do when they are President. They run as moderates, and they come in with these left wing plans. Integrity is a very rare quality and Goldwater did have it.

SM:
Yeah. Integrity, you raised a very important point because in higher education, Arthur Chickering, one of the gospel books or the Bible books of higher education is Education and Identity. And the seventh vector of development is integrity. Students should always be striving for that ultimate, which is integrity, which is being comfortable with who you are and standing for something.

ME:
Right. And this is something I teach my kids. I mean, we all make mistakes. You go through life, but you have to show integrity. You have to be honest with people. You have to be honest with yourself. I do not know how you live with yourself when you are a liar. Lots of people are.

SM:
Well, I am a firm believer that you could pay a higher up.

ME:
I think you are right.

SM:
This is very important for me because even though I interviewed Lee Edwards on this and I have had other people talk about it, and I think Tom Hawkin, I interviewed. He was one of the leaders of the Young Americans for Freedom. And I think he has a book coming out pretty soon. He said he has. And he is a Vietnam vet too. But please describe the Young Americans for Freedom in the (19)50s, (19)60s, and (19)70s. They were activists and they were against the war in Vietnam. How did they start? How big were they? Describe the students and what was their goals and purposes and accomplishments. I think we need to know more. I would like to see a book written about it.

ME:
Actually. I think Ron is doing one.

SM:
Is he?

ME:
It is a detailed one about the history of a former board member, Wayne Thorburn, T-H-O-R-B-U-R-N. Ask Ron. They might even let you see the draft or whatever it is in. It is in that state.

SM:
It is fantastic that he is doing that because nobody has done it.

ME:
Nope, nope. He has spent a lot of time on it. Wayne Thorburn was the executive director of YAF when I came to town in (19)73. Also, when Ron came, we both worked for him at Young Americans for Freedom. But I never heard of YAF until about (19)68, (19)69. There I was a freshman at Briarcliffe. I think there was a brochure. Somehow a brochure was on the table, and I picked it up and it described a group that was founded at William F. Buckley's home. And of course, I had been a fan of his from watching Firing Line and we got National Review at home. I do not know what it cost, $10 to join or something. So, I filled it out and sent it in. Before long, I got a call from somebody who wanted to come and see if I was interested in going into this and that. They had different meetings, and I did go. I was personally not ready for leadership then. I was feeling my way. I was learning what I had to learn. I was developing my personality. What happened for me was my junior year, I went to the University of London. This would have been (19)70 to (19)71. This was before Margaret Thatcher. This was Socialist England. Some people are sole learners. I had to see socialism. I had to see how it brought everybody down. I had to see how me, a relatively rich American when I broke my toe, went and got free medical care. Some hardworking ditch digger was paying for my medical care because it was free in England. I had to see it to understand the virtues of our then, anyway, free country, smaller government where people took more responsibility for themselves instead of looking to government always. So that was another magic moment for me, a year abroad in Socialist England. So, when I came back my senior year, that is when I got really active in Young Americans for Freedom. I brought in a speaker to college. I went to the different conferences and events. I read more. And then when I graduated, I was offered a position. My first position after college was at Young Americans for Freedom. So, I did not get that involved until I got back in August of (19)70, (19)71 and so that final year of college. And actually, then the young conservatives had it with Nixon because he had sold out to China, Red China and he was expanding the government incredibly. And so, for that election, we had a group called 72 Youth Against McGovern. What are young conservatives going to do when the presidential candidate is so disappointing? And so, we had Youth Against McGovern, and actually, that is where I was stuffing a mailing down at the New York YAF office on Jane Street in Greenwich Village; that is where I met my husband, and he was going to Fordham grad. We became friends and then he came to Washington then I came to Washington. But YAH was an alternative voice on campuses that were dominated by the left. When I started college in (19)68, that was the year that they shut down Columbia. They were blowing up places. Even at Briarcliffe, there was this ridiculous little contingent who shut it down for a day or so, right around exam time. And I remember thinking, of course, it was great not to take exams, but here we are paying this money and these stupid nitwits, and you are talking about a privileged brunch of young women who went to Briarcliffe shutting down the school and enforcing their views because they know best. And this is so typical of the left of Obama and of many of the feminists, they know what is best for you and we need to shut this school down for a couple of days to make our point about whatever, instead of really listening to what other people have to say. It is a kind of arrogance. In recent times, I remember when they had the healthcare summit and you had President Obama sitting there and you had Republicans and you had Democrats and everything in his body language, in his face, in his tone of voice was I really know best about Americans' healthcare. And to me, that just was so symbolic.

SM:
Would you say the other Democrats like Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, even Harry Truman, would you put them in the same-

ME:
Not as bad.

SM:
No?

ME:
No. It has gotten really bad. It has gotten really bad. This particular administration, I am certain he is a one-term President, but to me, it typifies what we saw in the left on the college campus at the time that YAF grew so tremendously. It was this arrogance that the left-wing way is the best. We know what is best. We are going to shut this down. We are going to blow things up like it or leave it. Bill Ayers, Obama's good buddy, we are going to blow things up because we know what's best. No contrition. To this day, no contrition out of Bill Ayers.

SM:
I know that Mark Rudd, who I have interviewed, has written the book Underground. I do not know if you saw that book. He admits some mistakes that were made by the Weather... He is not going to change anything about SDS, but-

ME:
No.

SM:
Yeah, going to violence, he has said that was wrong. It destroyed our organization. I do not think the other, Bernadine Dorn, has even... She is married to Bill Ayers. I do not think she has said anything like Mark Rudd.

ME:
Right-right. But I mean, this is sort of... To me, YAF was the alternative to this arrogant left-wing insistence that they knew best about everything. And then over time, it became a more positive thing promoting conservative ideas. And maybe it was that from the beginning. I mean, as I said, I was not involved until 10, 11 years into YAF.

SM:
I hope when your husband writes this book about the Young Americans for Freedom, that when he is talking about that particular organization in the (19)60s and the (19)70s that he brings in the important college students that a lot of students were not going to SDS, they were not going to the Black Panthers, they were not going to the women's groups. There were large contingents of students that were... I hope he really does that because when you read the periods, it seems like it is more liberal. It is all about the liberals and the activists.

ME:
But I mean, do not forget back then, that is all we heard about. Because other than human events and National Review and a couple of conservative talk show hosts, the whole media was run by people who were disagreeing with conservative ideas. They are all still there, but we have different outlets now. They have not changed. Listen to ABC, NBC, or CBS one night. You want to pull your hair out. That is how I feel. I listen sometimes just to get motivated. But now there are other outlets: internet, talk radio, and Fox. So that has changed. They have not changed at all.

SM:
See, what happens is that in all of these groups here, for example, in the gay and lesbian students or movement, Stonewall, in (19)69, then the Environmental Earth Day in 1970, then you have... Well, you have Black Panthers started and SDS. They all have these starting periods and how important they were and how many people were linked to them. Maybe it is because they are more visible. Were the Young Americans for Freedom they trying to be more invisible, or the media just did not...

ME:
The media just ignored them totally. They got away with it. They pretty much ignored what Goldwater had to say. They would characterize him as a cowboy. He was going to blow up the world. He had such a wonderful platform. So many good ideas about things that people started talking about seriously. The country would not be nearly in the pickle it is right now. He never got any coverage. It was so dominated by the left.

SM:
How about when Bill Buckley had that first meeting in the creation of the Young Americans for Freedom was there any kind of coverage for that?

ME:
I am sure there was not except in National Review, perhaps.

SM:
Those early students that started coming... I mean, that in itself would be a book.

ME:
Right. I am sure there was not. I mean, it was total dominance. We have a video on our website of Clare Booth Luce in about (19)64, I guess. I think it was during the campaign. And she is being interviewed by I think Eric Sevareid and some other lefty. And they are just incredulous, astonished beyond belief that she would suggest there was any bias in the media towards Barry Goldwater. You can find it on our website if you want. But I mean that was so typical. Not only did they not cover anybody, and did they pick on unfairly on conservatives, but then they denied it. And some of them to this day still do. She was fighting the good fight. One thing we love about her, she was so lovely, so gracious, so intelligent, and feisty. She would stand up way back then when the ladies were not on TV for the most part. But they just denied that there was any... Oh, they laughed at her.

SM:
Would you consider her kind of what Eleanor Roosevelt was to the Democratic Party is what Clare Booth Luce was to the Republican Party?

ME:
I consider her much better. I consider her much smarter, much more articulate, much more influential, and grossly ignored. It is one of the reasons we picked her. Well, partly because there was really no contest. There was nobody that did as much as she did from (19)44 through the end of her life. Well, before (19)44; this was when she did the keynote. Because they never studied her, they never talk about her. The women's studies do not even acknowledge the existence of such an extraordinary woman in that era who influenced so many things. Eleanor Roosevelt, they give her all kinds of credit for all kinds of stuff. Nobody in universities or in most books give Mrs. Luce credit for what she did.

SM:
The only person that I can remember that kind of stands out in the (19)50s was a female when I was young was Margaret Chase.

ME:
Yes. And she was a senator from Maine, and she was very distinct.

SM:
There you go. Yep.

ME:
We looked at Margaret Chase Smith when it came to the naming the institute because we wanted to name it after an individual woman, somebody that young women of this era could relate to. And she was elected. She worked hard. But her life compared to Mrs. Luce's; she was the playwright, wrote the [inaudible] still being produced to this day. She was an ambassador. She was a congresswoman. She was the editor of Vanity Fair. She had a long marriage to Henry Lewis and I am sure that was a challenge. She had a daughter. She had stepsons. She had a deep spiritual life. She became a Catholic at a certain point in her life actually when her daughter was killed in a car crash. It was terrible, terrible. So, you look at all those dimensions to her life and then you look at Margaret Chase Smith, who was a lovely accomplished woman. There was no comparison. There was no contest. There was no woman like Mrs. Luce in modern American history in the modern conservative movement. There was no contest. So that is why I went to her family and asked permission. The lawyer said, you do not have to ask the family, but smart. So, I did. And her stepson, Henry Luce, who was heading the Luce Foundation was the son of Clare's husband as sort of this gruff fella. And he said, "Well, I do not agree with what you're doing, but she would like it so you can use the name."

SM:
What would you say... And a lot of people do not like the term boomer, but what would you say that Clare Booth Luce's life meant to the post-World War II generation that they may not even be aware of?

ME:
Well, I think she was a wonderful role model for a woman who wanted to enjoy traditional life and professional life. And who was proud of her religious deep spirituality, who loved her family, and had this amazing career all at the same time. She is a role model. I mean, that is why we picked her. Now, the truth is you did not hear much about her because the left and the liberals so dominated the media. And that is one of the reasons we talk about her a lot here, especially with the young women because they never hear about her in college. Never.

SM:
I know a lot of conservative women that are at Westchester University. They graduated and... Actually, a lot of them never even said whether they were liberal or conservative, but-

ME:
Because it is easier not to.

SM:
But now they have graduated, you see on their Facebook conservative. They came to everything to learn. But I did not know they were conservative or liberal. But when you look at these periods when boomers were alive, in your eyes, could you define them in your own words? Either through experience or just studying and knowledge of history, what do these periods mean to you? The period 1946 to 1960.

ME:
I mean, in 1960, I was ten. So, I mean, that was an era when Americans were so relieved that the war was over. I know my own parents started their family. They settled in the Levi Towns. The guys went to college on the GI Bill. It was a time when America was happy at being America without all the questioning. We had won the war. We defeated the tyrant. The settlement was not so great in the way they divided up Europe. But it was a calmer time. It was an easier time. It was a time when schools, the public schools, it was so much easier for parents because people shared values about what it was they wanted the schools to teach their kids and you did not have all these raging social controversies. Not that there was perfection, there were still challenges. There were children who were not well cared for. There were wives and husbands who were not happy. But it was a simpler time. And I think it was post the chaos of the World War people were happy to be safe and prosperous. Taxes were fairly low. Government was reasonably small, although it was starting to creep up there. And so, it was a calmer, quieter time. And certainly, my childhood was probably typical.

SM:
Well, before we get to the other periods, one of the negatives about the period, two of them, is that the television of the era really hid the racism that was happening in our society.

ME:
Yes-yes.

SM:
That it was basically all White people on television except for Amos and Andy in the early (19)50s, which was a slapstick. And Nat King Cole had a program like 10 weeks-

ME:
That is right.

SM:
...In the middle (19)50s. And then the second thing was the McCarthy hearing, which was the fear that everybody was a communist and people...

ME:
Well, I am just reading about Sandra Bird in the Post at lunchtime, and I mean he led the filibuster to prevent the Civil Rights Act from passing. I do not think I'd have been with Senator Bird on that one. I mean, I was a young adolescent at the time, but there were an awful lot of people in the Democrat party who were opposed to the kind of changes. And of course, the Republican Party came out of the Civil War and the people who wanted to have freedom for the slaves. So, it is interesting how that is all twisted around in some ways, although there are some interesting candidates coming to the fore now.

SM:
That is the criticism of President Kennedy because if anything, he was a pragmatic politician. Before he ever started linking up with the big four: Dr. King, Jane Farmer, Wilkins, and Whitney Young. It is what kind of effect is this going to have in my Southern Democrats who basically-

ME:
Right-right. But then the residual effects of that today are absurd like in Virginia, you cannot... When it comes to primary elections, any person can vote in any of them. That is a residual effect of the Civil Rights Act saying that if you had to declare a party, it is stigmatized in a racial way. I mean, it is ridiculous. What happens around here is the liberal Democrats come and vote for the liberal Republicans in the primaries or the more liberal and they skew the elections. And that is a crazy leftover.

SM:
You can see a direct... I asked this to James Spanos too. Do you see a direct link between what we are seeing today in Congress between Republicans and Democrats and what happened in the (19)60s? Because a lot of those people that are in Congress are boomers from that era. Some are older that are World War II generations. The majority of them are boomers or Generation Xers, which is the group that followed boomers.

ME:
When you say what happens in Congress, are you talking about the dominance of the liberal and the left?

SM:
Yeah. Well, no, it is just that they do not talk to each other. There is dislike, there is no trust between the other side. They have these meetings, but it's all show. People are frustrated with both parties.

ME:
Right-right. Well, I remember when the Republicans took over the Senate whenever that was way back, and they basically equalized the numbers with maybe one or two extra on each of these committees. I was looking at the judiciary committee that is looking at Kagan. I think it is like 12-7 or something. I think that from my observation, the Democrats rarely seek fairness. They seek power. They seek absolute power whereas when the Republican... And then the other thing the Republicans did when they took over is they cut budgets of committees. So, I mean, I do not see equal blame here for the current incivility. I see a kind of arrogance and we are in charge now, Harry Reid and Pelosi, this despicable kind of arrogance. We are running things so we do not have to talk to you, which they both literally said as the root of the problem, not that the loyal opposition is speaking up. They are supposed to speak up. And if you watch this Kagan hearing going on now, you see an awful lot of courteous but hard questioning from Jack Sessions from some of the others. You see a courtesy. I remember when Bork was up and they pulverized him.

SM:
I remember that.

ME:
It was brutal. It was personal. It was unbelievable. I do not see that as much on the Republican side.

SM:
I think Alito had some pretty rough ones too.

ME:
Yep. I remember they went after... It was the Post, really. But the way Robert's children were dressed, I do not know if you remember that. That to me was the ultimate sneering because they were dressed in pastel colors. It was this little boy and this little girl, and I thought, "This is just too absurd." I mean, this is so uncivil.

SM:
Well, just your thoughts again on this period between 1961 to 1970. How do you read that period? [inaudible] thoughts.

ME:
I do not know, 11 to 20. It was turmoil. You saw the left, certainly in the schools and the universities. The anti-war movement you saw that developing big time during the (19)60s. I mean, Goldwater was defeated in (19)64. And then the conservatives started to get together and act more strategically. The left was just loving its power and the anti-war movement. We talked about how the woman's movement at that point shifted more from equality in the law [inaudible] to this hating man, hating America, hating religion, hating faith, and female solidarity. That was the thing. But it was only liberal and conservative female, not conservative female solitary. I remember when one of my favorites is when Kay Bailey Hutchison was running for senate in Texas. Gloria Steinem, the grandmother of the feminist movement, attacked her viciously. She said, " Hutchison is a female impersonator. She looks like us but thinks like them." See, this was the woman's movement that was developing in the (19)60s. You cannot be a good woman unless you were a liberal or leftist. And it ties back to when I had my eureka moment; who are these people? They do not represent me. This was the (19)60s. This is what they grew into. When I was in college, they were sort of burning their bras. They were not running it yet, although most of my professors were liberal.

SM:
What about the (19)70s? Is that just a continuation of the (19)60s?

ME:
These are good questions. I mean, I have not thought that much about it. I mean, to me personally and professionally, it was building up to Reagan. It was losing different things.

SM:
That might be it.

ME:
Yeah-yeah.

SM:
Although some people say up to (19)73, it was still the (19)60s.

ME:
Maybe. Could be.

SM:
I think those first four years were really the same.

ME:
I came to town and then we had Watergate. We were working away. We were also discouraged with Nixon. Anyway. You had Goldwater. You had the man of integrity on our side saying you need to resign. In (19)76, I took off work. I went down to Florida, worked for Reagan. We lost big time. Remember two to one, Tommy; he said we were going to win two to one. We lost big time. And Reagan lost at the Republican National Convention by a few votes. But it was sort of in the hands of God because then we had Jimmy Carter and then the nation was ready for Ronald Reagan. So, it is interesting how things work.

SM:
How about the (19)80s? Because that is... A lot of people say it was Ronald Reagan and George Bush came out at the end of it.

ME:
We had a financial problem in the country, so we cut taxes and we let the money go into the private sector. And guess what? In a year or two we were out of it. If only Obama could think of that and could see that. And then the (19)80s was tremendous growth. I mean, this area here in Northern Virginia and tremendous growth all around Dulles Airport here. All these computer companies, the private sector, Bill Gates, computers. And I remember early in the Reagan years, I had a big deal job, and I had a computer, and I took a course. But you know what? There was no reason for me to learn how to use that computer because I did not need it at my job. I come here, I start this institute. I got to do the computer. I got to do the word process. We keep all our donor records on it. I mean, there is a huge increase in productivity because of the boom that came with the growth of computers and technology. So, the (19)80s were fabulous growth years. I give credit to lower taxes and the flourishing of business by leaving them alone. Leave them alone.

SM:
Would you consider the (19)80s bringing back the military because the military had gone really downhill in the... Well, the (19)70s.

ME:
Yes. Right. The people would spit on the returning Vietnam veterans. But Reagan had a great reverence for the military. And as President, he really was a leader in that sense and he would highlight them and honor the military people, as many Americans had always done anyway.

SM:
When Ronald Reagan... He did not say in a speech, but it was a feeling. It was ambience. It was just an aura about him. It was a perception of we are back. And that was something that he set up very early in his administration. What did he mean by that? We are back. Was that strictly about the military? Was that pride of-

ME:
I mean, I do not remember specifically saying it, but to me, it would mean the time-tested values that made America great, which are acknowledging the wonderful productivity of people and businesses left alone, families keeping more of their own money to spend it on their children and whatever they want in the way they do. America becoming a leader in the world, defeating the Soviet Union. We outspent them. We did more military than they did. They could not keep up all those communist nations with those people held captives for all those years with that Roosevelt-Churchill agreement were freed. Well, I went on a cruise over there a couple of years ago. Those people love Ronald Reagan. You go up to anybody in the street. They love Ronald Reagan because they are free now. So, we are back: freedom, families, celebrating faith. He did celebrate faith.

SM:
Do you think the most well-known quote from him is tear down this wall?

ME:
It is a good one. When I was president of the Virginia Board of Education, we had standards of learning in history. I got that in there. They may have removed it since, but I had to barter with the Democrats to do that.

SM:
Just to have that in there?

ME:
Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. See, they dominated.

SM:
That is part of history.

ME:
It did not matter. It was so political. These Democrats are so political. We had a board of nine- So they were so political. These Democrats were so political. We had a board of nine, five were Democrats, four were Republicans, at that point. And so, I had to barter. I had to give them some stupid [inaudible]-

SM:
When you think of the (19)90s, of course, we're thinking of the latter part of George Bush's, number one, and Bill Clinton.

ME:
That is right. That is right.

SM:
So, what are the (19)90s statement first?

ME:
Well, I remember the day he made the announcement that he was going to raise taxes. I was working for him. And I called in the staff, said, "That is it. We're out here." Oh, no. People will understand, blah, blah, blah." No, they did not. They did not. It was breaking faith with the Americans. He said, "Read my lips, no new taxes." And he was a good man. He seemed to have integrity in different ways, but that was it for him. And then we got Bill Clinton, what a grotesque character. But in the end, he put his finger in the wind and he did some things with the budget. Of course, he was living off of all the glorious success of Reagan and Bush and their policies generally. So, the country was still growing. They were able to balance the budget because the military budget was way down, because we had won the Cold War. But on sort of a personal social level, what a grotesque character to be. I mean, people say the certain behaviors of teenagers now, they take it back to Bill Clinton saying, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." These kids are saying, "Well, that is not sex to be doing this to each other. That is not sex." I do not know if it goes back to Clinton.

SM:
And then of course, the 10s is George Bush, number two.

ME:
Right. Right.

SM:
And Obama has been here a year-and-a-half. But [inaudible]-

ME:
Right. I mean, George Bush, number two, kept us safe militarily. He reacted very well after 911. Nobody was ready before 911 to do the kind of things we needed to do to keep those wicked terrorists out of our country. He spent too much money. He did not veto enough. I think he did his best, but he was a tremendous disappointment to conservatives. And then Obama ran as a moderate. Americans like to give somebody a chance. I cannot tell you how many people I know who are fairly conservative say, "Well, I want to give the Black guy a chance because that shows in America anybody can be president." And now, most of those people have turned against him, totally, because he's not governing as a moderate.

SM:
I know on Newt Gingrich and the Republicans came into power in (19)94, and I have read, I think it is also in his brand-new book, Newt Gingrich talks about that era when boomers were young, or the (19)60s and (19)70s, and a lot of the problems we have in our society today go right back to that period. And he was making reference to the drug culture, the lack of morality, certainly the divorce rate-

ME:
Newt is talking about this?

SM:
Yeah. I know. I know. It was basically he was just making general statements. And George will also, at times in his writings, will make judgements or commentaries going back to that period. But a lot of the reasons why we have had problems in our country, it goes right back to that time. And they were making reference to I think the kind of the countercultural issues that we were going through at that time.

ME:
Right.

SM:
Just your thoughts on-

ME:
I think that some of that is true. I think that this, I remember in the (19)60s it was, "If it feels good, do it." And the reference, of course, sexually.

SM:
Right.

ME:
And so, then a lot of folks, mostly educated folks, figured out that was not such a good idea. But a whole segment of society just bought into it. And isn’t it like something, 40, 50, 60 percent of children, urban children, are born without a married mother and father. And so, that I mean, I do not know what it is from. But it seems to me, that it makes sense that it came from that, "Oh, just do whatever you want." But educated people of greater economics figured out, "No, this is not the best for kids or for society." But there is just huge chunks of society now, especially at the lower end economically, who just they have the children without marriage. And the children suffer, and the families suffer. It is a terrible cultural situation.

SM:
A lot of people, very critical of Lyndon Johnson on that because they say he created the welfare state.

ME:
Right.

SM:
Do you think that is a pretty strong statement?

ME:
No. I think it is true. And I think that at times, some of the rules that rewarded mothers for having more children without husbands, if they had a husband, then they would be off the assistance program. But if they did not have a husband and they had more children, they would get more money. I mean, I think all the incentives were perverse. And I think this whole notion that we help people when they are down, sure. But not for decades, and decades, and decades. You help people a little. And then of course, the government takes so much of our money that although Americans still are the most generous on the face of the earth, privately, people could do much more if they were not paying 20, 30, 40, 50 percent taxes. So, the government steps in, it encourages behaviors which are harmful to children and families by its idiot policies. So, yeah. I mean, I think that Lyndon Johnson and what he meant to do to help people, in effect, it really did not help. It hurt a lot of children, a lot of families all over the country. And the results we still see today.

SM:
Did Ronald Reagan try to fight that when he was in? Because-

ME:
Yes. Yes.

SM:
...correct me if I am wrong, there were two things that he built his reputation on in California. It was he was going to be tough on students who try to shut down and disrupt universities.

ME:
Right-right.

SM:
And number two, was to end the welfare state.

ME:
Right. And he tried. But who signed welfare reform? It was Bill Clinton. It was a Republican Congress. And in the end, he signed a federal bill that forced states to make people go back to work instead of just staying on welfare year, after year, after year. Now, I feel sure that I have read Obama has changed that back. But it was Bill Clinton who signed welfare reform, which was so interesting to me. He was not nearly as ideological as either Hillary or Obama.

SM:
People think Bill Clinton was kind of a middle of the roader.

ME:
Right. But I mean, I think it was not from conviction. It was just whatever seemed to work right.

SM:
Oh, when did the (19)60s begin, in your opinion? And when did it end?

ME:
The (19)60s?

SM:
And what was the watershed moment?

ME:
Well, for conservatives it was the Goldwater nomination and election, (19)64. Because it coalesced us around a candidate who, well, like I said, in my family, it was the first-time mom and dad said, "Anybody running for national office was really articulating their beliefs about taxes were too high." People have gotten so used to high taxes. And I remember reading Wall Street Journal while I was serving and it said, and it was a few years ago but, "Most women who make less than their husbands, most women, their paycheck goes to pay taxes." Is not that outrageous? Most of what women make in families when the husband makes more than the wife, pays the taxes. Now, this is just wrong. This means taxes are too high. And so, I think Goldwater was talking about this. I know my dad, he worked very-very hard. He would always work against the school bond increases. I mean, he was paying taxes that were just sapping our family. We had four kids. Mother did not work. She took care of the family. So, that was back in the (19)60s. Goldwater was finally a national candidate saying this. And so, for conservatives, yes. Even though we lost, we can have a national voice. And then Reagan and different people. So, that was the watershed, I think for conservatives in the (19)60s.

SM:
That was the end, when did it end, the (19)60s end?

ME:
I do not know. You were talking about (19)70s. I am not exactly sure on that, to be honest. I was in school (19)68 to (19)72. I had that year abroad. That opened my eyes to what socialism is. I am not sure I have an answer when it ended.

SM:
But the beginning of the (19)60s and the watershed moment were Goldwater?

ME:
Yes.

SM:
Why did the Vietnam War end, in your opinion? Just your thoughts on that.

ME:
Why did it end?

SM:
Mm-hmm.

ME:
It ended because the Congress did not appropriate the funds they needed. They were winning. They were doing wonderfully well. But they were sick of the war. Americans were sick of the war. It is going to happen in Afghanistan, you watch. We have to choose our wars in a better way. We have to get in and get out. I mean, George Bush understood this. The first George Bush. The second Bush pretty much got into Iraq, and we finished that up. I do not think Obama has a clue about these kinds of strategic matters. I mean, when he announced the big thing in Afghanistan, I remember thinking-

SM:
That is a year-and-a-half, it is going-

ME:
What? Nobody ever wins in Afghanistan. The Russians do not win. The invading... Centuries pass, nobody wins.

SM:
Alexander the Great did not win.

ME:
That is right. That is right. But I do not believe that Obama has very much breadth and depth of knowledge about foreign affairs. And I think our country is in peril. I think what will happen is he will give up in a year or two. Those people will be in a terrible way. We will pull out like we did in Vietnam. Anybody who helped us, they will send to reeducation camps or kill them. Vietnam was such a disgrace for our country to end it that way. After 50,000 lives. I do not know if you knew anybody that died, but I sure did.

SM:
Oh, I do.

ME:
Just young, idealistic men who went to fight the war. We could have won it if we would have had a little more guts. But we never should have started it, and it was LBJ, remember, that greatly increased our presence there, if we were not going to finish it.

SM:
Yeah. And I have read so many books on Eisenhower, and Kennedy, and [inaudible]-

ME:
Right. You know what? In my mind, Vietnam ending was the helicopter on the top of the embassy.

SM:
April 30th, 1975.

ME:
It makes me emotional when I think about the ambassador. You remember him? He was the last one to get on. And I remember his face was so distraught because we were leaving so many behind, Vietnamese who had helped us. And he could not take them all. And it was the last copter. And I also remember Gerald Ford, who I never liked anyway, that day he was getting off a plane somewhere and he literally ran away from the media, so he did not have to answer questions about this disgrace that had just happened. But I think it was Ellsworth Bunker, was that his name?

SM:
Yeah, Ellsworth Bunker. Yes.

ME:
Right.

SM:
He was, yes.

ME:
And it was the saddest sight. And all these people on the ground trying to get up there. And we just abandoned them. We abandon the horrors of reeducation camp.
SM:
I know that the ARVN, which was South Vietnamese Army, they were throwing their uniforms away, hoping that the North Vietnamese would not know that they had been in the service.

ME:
Right. There was no hope for those people. So, many of them tortured, ruined. What a disgrace. What a horrible thing. I hope it does not end that way in Afghanistan. But I have very little faith in Obama.

SM:
I have been talking about the boomer generation. But what term would best define this group that was born after the war? Would you say, I just have a couple of them, the Vietnam generation, the protest generation, the Woodstock generation, the movement generation? Is there a term that you would use to define the 74 million that were born after World War II, what they define as a boomer?

ME:
It is interesting. Because I think you gave five terms, and four of them were for the left. Woodstock.

SM:
Yeah.

ME:
The last one was the movement.

SM:
Yeah, movements and Woodstock. That is a counterculture.

ME:
Maybe it is dominance. Dominance in expression by a very small number who had their lives in the political world, and in the media, and in the popular culture. Americans, I have always thought most Americans at core, pretty conservative about stuff. But they do get sucked in by Obama types. They do get tired of wars, especially when it looks like we are not winning them. But I mean, it is a great country with great people. And there is a small number of lefties who have had tremendous success in dominating policy. Much, much more than they should based on their numbers or the logic of their positions. So, I mean, I know all those terms. And they are valid. They describe certain groups.

SM:
Right.

ME:
But maybe it is the silent majority. Maybe that is what it is. Is that when we talked about the silent majority in the (19)60s? I do not know. It is just the people that just go to work, they pay their taxes, they raise their families.

SM:
That is a Nixon term, the silent majority.

ME:
Yeah. Right. Well, that would have been what, (19)68 to whatever.

SM:
Yeah. And I know the Silent Generation is what they define as the generation before the boomers, which was not the Greatest Generation.

ME:
Right.

SM:
It was that five- or six-year period, almost like the Korean War people. But a lot of those people were really involved in the anti-war movement.

ME:
Right. Right. I mean, the left dominated. But they were not dominant in numbers.

SM:
I am going to read this. I will get my glasses on here. Because you worked for both President Reagan and President Bush. Within the boomer generation, something about Ronald Reagan. He is revered by some and despised by others. Why? I know in California he stood for those two things that I talked about. And that obviously, people that lived in California at the time knew what he stood for when he was running for president. Just your thoughts of why... I am being impartial on this.

ME:
Right.

SM:
Because I am a Democrat. And I am more of a liberal.

ME:
Right.

SM:
But I really like Ronald Reagan.

ME:
Right.

SM:
And I am not going to put that in my interview.

ME:
Right-right, right.

SM:
But I just do not understand why he just draws the ire of so many people when he was basically a decent human being.

ME:
Right. First off, I do not think he is as widely despised, even by some of the worst despisers now, since his death. I think it was so interesting. He was sick. He was sick for a while, and then he died. And the reporting on Reagan, even from the liberal outlets, was so interesting to me that it was much more positive than I would have thought. Okay. So, I do not think he is as despised now as he was. But I think it is what happens when somebody is so clear, and so plain, and communicating, in this case, conservative ideas. And people just get enthusiastic just listening to him. It is almost like with Sarah Palin, a little bit of what you saw. And the people who disagree in terms of policy are so angry, are so angry at the effectiveness. I mean, Ronald Reagan was the most effective communicator we have ever had in the country. And people just love to hear him and listen to him. And they say, "Yeah. Yeah, that is right." Democrats and Republican. Well, the Reagan Democrats. And I think that just makes sort of the ideological left is so angry. And that is why they despise him because he is so effective.

SM:
Are you upset with Sarah Palin though? Because I even have read that Republicans are upset with her by saying that she wants to meet Margaret Thatcher to get her support because she was close to Ronald Reagan. And somebody said, "The nerve of her to put herself in the same league with Ronald Reagan." I mean, it is some Republicans are furious about this.

ME:
There's some people who do not like her. I was talking more about Sarah Palin during the campaign. I mean, what a vicious stuff with her kids. And there's a viciousness towards her. I do not know if it is because she is a beautiful, conservative woman. I do not know that she is ever going to run again, to be honest. She is enjoying the success with her book.

SM:
Right. Right.

ME:
Going all around the country. She has got all these kids, this great life in Alaska. People do not want to leave Alaska because my parents did not want to leave it. But I do not see her saying, "I am in the same category with them." But I will tell you, I have been in crowds when she is speaking, and I see a similar enthusiasm for what she has to say. It is a plain common-sense way of articulating ideas that most people believe in, like Ronald Reagan did. She has that ability. She has the ability to get everybody on their feet cheering at a dinner, at a rally. There is not a lot of politicians... John McCain sure did not have it. Obama had a lot of charisma. But I mean, I am not saying she is equal to Ronald Reagan in any way. But I am just saying the hatred, the viciousness, that you saw about Reagan, that you saw about Palin, especially during the election. I think it has to do with anger that they're so successful at articulating these views. And people just want to hear them.

SM:
I kind of wish, and this is off the cuff here, but I kind of wish that we had the politics of a Tip O'Neill and a Ronald Reagan. And to be able to have a diehard Democrat and a diehard Republican and to be able to be friends.

ME:
Yeah, it is true.

SM:
That is what we need in Washington. We need Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill types.

ME:
But I mean, it has become ugly and bitter. And to have a healthcare bill like that that Republicans did not even see until the day before they were voting on it, I mean, it is insane. That is some kind of a special arrogance. Well, they did not want them to see it because they would get opposition to it.

SM:
Right.

ME:
But this is a crazy way to run a family, to run a Congress.

SM:
We made a reference to Betty Friedan. What is the difference between feminism and radical feminism? I have noticed in my interviews that the radical feminists really do not like or have really problems with Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan because they are not radical enough. They are mainstream feminists.

ME:
Yeah.

SM:
And a lot of people believe that radical feminists are running the women's studies programs, not the feminists like Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan.

ME:
Right. Right.

SM:
And basically, what are your thoughts on Betty Friedan, people like Betty Friedan. I got a group here. Bear with me as I read these.

ME:
Right-right. Okay.

SM:
Your thoughts on Betty Friedan, Bella Abzug, Shirley Chisholm, Gloria Steinem, Eleanor Smeal, Kate Millett, Germaine Greer. These are all liberals.

ME:
Right-right.

SM:
Susan Brownmiller, Rebecca Walker, Winona LaDuke, Robin Morgan, Susan Johnson, and I think Andrea Dworkin, and Alice Walker. These are people-

ME:
I mean, you... Go ahead.

SM:
These are people that are defined as liberals, but they are different in their approach.

ME:
But I mean, there is so many different strains there. That Andrea Dworkin. I mean, she had an unhappy life with men. And she was basically a man-hater. Lookism, anybody who looked good, this was really a bad thing. There is a lot of different strains in feminism. What I do when I teach the young women workers about it is I just use the words of their leadership. Gloria Steinem, she is a female impersonator. That says it all to me. This is what she said about a conservative woman running. There are some conservative women who call themselves feminist of a sort. They call themselves equity feminist. And that goes back to the suffragette idea of equal treatment under the law. I cannot use the word feminist to describe now. But people say, "What do you mean? You got your, well, you are a professor. You are a feminist." No, no, no. It is like the word gay. Gay is not children playing Ring Around the Rosie anymore. Gay is homosexuals and sodomites.

SM:
Right.

ME:
Well, to me, feminist is a word they have taken. I mean suffragette, okay. I am okay with that. But they have taken, and it means sort of this man-hating, this disparaging anti-conservative woman, discouraging anybody who does not toe the line. Anybody who talked about life is totally unreasonably, a million babies a year. No problem. So, I mean, to me, you hate to lump them all together. But most of them are pretty radical to me, based on what they say and what they have written.

SM:
Yeah. Yeah, and their books are very popular books. Most of them are very popular writers.

ME:
Right.

SM:
Some of the younger ones. The two younger ones are Rebecca Walker and Winona LaDuke. I mean, they are power brokers. One's Native American.

ME:
Yep. Yeah.

SM:
And I mean, they are very popular on college campuses.

ME:
Right.

SM:
The other thing too is that when you talk about the politicians, yeah, the Geraldine Ferraro, the Elizabeth Holtzman, the Hillary Clinton, Tipper Gore, Susan Molinari, Pat Schroeder, Lindy Boggs. Those are people that really define I think the Democratic Party as females.

ME:
Right. They are hardworking. They are smart. But they are extremely left-wing, every single one of them.

SM:
What are your thoughts though? I think of the women's studies and certainly Black studies and some of these programs started, they were all challenged in the beginning for their academic, certainly Black studies because it is happening on college campuses, but all of these studies programs were developed because their history was not in the history books.

ME:
Right.

SM:
Howard Zinn has written the alternative history. Just your thoughts on that.

ME:
The fatal flaw to all of these is their lack of intellectual diversity. They do not teach Thomas Sowell. They do not do Clarence Thomas in Black studies. They only teach certain Blacks.

SM:
They do teach Phyllis Schlafly though.

ME:
Well. They teach her to ridicule her, in most cases, in women's studies. They do not teach her in a fair and even hand. I have never heard about it if they do. They do not have them read Ann Coulter. They do not have them read Michelle Malkin. They do not have Star Parker, turned her life around. It is a lack of intellectual diversity that makes them all lack integrity. But it is typical, frankly, no offense. But typical of the university environment. I went to four years of law school at American University, graduated in (19)80 when Reagan was elected. I had one conservative professor in four years. That is a disservice to me as a student. All the legal policy issues, we only heard them from a left-wing point of view. All the money we paid, that is a disservice to students. And these programs, that is their fatal flaw. It is a lack of intellectual diversity.

SM:
It is interesting because I worked with Pat a lot.

ME:
Yeah. Right-right.

SM:
And he brought a lot of conservatives to the campus.

ME:
Right. But this was extraordinarily unusual that a professor would work at the conservative group to have different points of view heard.

SM:
Well, I love Pat. I said to Ron, I said, "You got a great young man here." Not only because he was at Penn State, but we need more of it. And we need to find more people that are willing to bring in these points of views. Because now it is even more so. It is all about the bottom line. So, if anything is brought in that will threaten the bottom line, I think that is a major issue, even for conservative speakers. So, there is a lot of liberals that are giving money. I mean, if a conservative speaker comes in and it is going to threaten the bottom line and what money's going to be donated, that is wrong. Education is primary. It is number one.

ME:
Right. Right.

SM:
It is not about the bottom line.

ME:
Right.

SM:
Why did the ERA fail? Because of-

ME:
Because Phyllis Schlafly got millions of moms who had never before been active to go up and complain and say, "We do not want this. We do not want unelected judges deciding things the state legislators ought to be deciding." And she activated millions and millions of, a lot of them were housewives, just women who had never before been active in a policy debate. And you got to give her credit for that. How amazing. Not only did she beat it back, but she had a number of states rescind their original. I remember in Virginia going and testifying, way early in the (19)70s. I do not think Virginia ever passed it. But it was almost a Ronald Reaganesque to bring people into the process who previously had not been in. And the truth is, Obama did that in a way too. A lot of people, especially African Americans who never voted, who never cared, they got excited about this guy.

SM:
See, I like Obama. But I do not like the people around him. And I think he had brought into his administration too many Clintonites.

ME:
Right.

SM:
And I think it is really hurt him. And I think he has gotten bad advice. A lot of people do not like his body language. And there is a lot of things they do not like about him. And certainly, the Bill Ayers thing.

ME:
Right.

SM:
That has been discussed behind the scenes because I have friends over at the [inaudible]-

ME:
But I mean, whoever advised him on this oil spill ought to be shot.

SM:
Yeah. And, yeah.

ME:
The Jones Act was suspended. Have the partnerships, whatever.

SM:
Yeah. Yeah. I just think, talk about, who was it to talk about firing people? Forget, was it you or Bill? He needs to fire some of his people.

ME:
That is right.

SM:
And I-

ME:
Well, a couple are starting to go, but-

SM:
...do not like his chief of staff.

ME:
No, I do not.

SM:
I do not like his chief of staff.

ME:
He is so crooked. He is so crooked.

SM:
And I think it's hurting him.

ME:
Here is something else. I probably should not say this on tape.

SM:
Well, I will be editing all this.

ME:
Okay. I think Obama is going to be brought into this Blagojevich thing. I think that he was involved. I think that-

SM:
Well, the governor of-

ME:
Right. Selling his seat. I think Rahm has sort of taken the fall for it. I think that Obama is corrupt in a financial way. And just Mark, where is that? Take it out of there. [inaudible]-

SM:
Well, I am amazed though that this guy's still not in jail. But anyways.

ME:
I know.

SM:
Might ask also, what were the most important, as a lawyer, the most important legal decisions that have taken place for say boomer women during this time frame? Could be all women. I said Roe vs Wade seems to be the big one. And then cannot take away Brown versus Board of Education, which is for everyone. Would you say those are the two most-

ME:
I would.

SM:
...important legal decisions [inaudible]?

ME:
I would. And I think that our grandkids and our great grandkids are going to look back on the pro choices with the same scorn that grandchildren of slave owners look back on their grandparents for owning slaves, and Dred Scott, and all that. I think they're going to be horrified at the number of children who have been killed prior to birth for no good reason other than just convenience. Yeah. I think, I will probably be dead, but my kids and my kids' kids will see an incredible scorn heaped on these pro choices, who are any time, any place, anywhere, any how it's fine to kill the babies. Yeah.

SM:
Yeah. Let us-

ME:
Those are the two I would pick. Those are the two cases.

SM:
Yeah. And I interviewed Susan Brownmiller last week in New York City.

ME:
Right.

SM:
And she said, "Certainly Roe vs Wade." And she said there were other decisions too beyond just the Brown versus Board of Education. But those two kinds of stand out. I already asked you who Clare Boothe Luce is.

ME:
Yeah. Amazing lady.

SM:
Are your thoughts on the best writers of the (19)50s and (19)60s, beginning, I would like your thoughts on the beat writers. The beat writers of the (19)50s were kind of the role models for many of the activists of the (19)60s on the new left because they were anti-authoritarian. That is Ginsberg, Kerouac, Cassidy, Gary Snyder, Ferlinghetti, Ann Walden, Leroy Jones. These were the writers. These were the beatniks, the beats. And some people have told me that the (19)60s really began in the (19)50s when they wrote their books. And Howl, that historic book that Ginsberg wrote in the middle (19)50s that was banned, and on the road, they-they were very influential in creating amongst, at least the red diaper babies, who were the group that many of them became the new left. They were important.

ME:
Right.

SM:
Because they were anti-authoritarian.

ME:
Right. I was a little girl in the (19)50s. And in the (19)60s, I cannot say that I read that many of those. But I think in the (19)60s, if you just listened to the TV, and the radio, and read the papers, you could absorb their liberal ideas, anti-authoritarian, if you will. I cannot say that I have read many of those, to be honest. But I am familiar with the names. And maybe it was some of the writing in the (19)50s, Russell Kirk, Bill Buckley, and others, that brought us to '64 and Goldwater. So, maybe it takes 10 years for books to be ingested.

SM:
You mentioned Buckley, God and Man at Yale, is a classic.

ME:
Right.

SM:
And I have encouraged every student to read it, no matter who they are.

ME:
He wrote that one, The Unmaking of a Mayor. I think it was like (19)65 when he ran for-

SM:
I think I have that book. Yeah.

ME:
...mayor. What a wonderful book. In fact, I do not know if my husband told you, but that is the book that made him a conservative. Because he had a professor, a high school teacher, who said, "He is the most dangerous person next to Hitler in the history of the world." So, Ron went and read the book and he agreed with everything. He was in Catholic high school.

SM:
One of the greatest debates I have ever seen, because I have got it on YouTube, is the debate of Malcolm X and William Buckley over-

ME:
Yes.

SM:
I mean, and I love Firing Line. And I liked any of those shows because of the fact that he brought on really smart people.

ME:
Right.

SM:
And he brought on people that he did not even like.

ME:
That is right.

SM:
Philosophically. But they were friends. [inaudible]-

ME:
But he liked to debate.

SM:
...was a friend of his.

ME:
I know that. I know. He had Clare Boothe Luce on at one point. They had a wonderful discussion. Because she defended feminism, but it was the feminism of the suffragists.

SM:
Do you have that on tape? And where is Firing the Line? Are they going to be allowed to be shown on public broadcasting? You do not see them.

ME:
I do not know. I do not know. I am trying to think. I can check on that.

SM:
Yeah, that would be interesting to check on. Because all you see on YouTube are these snippets of about five minutes.

ME:
Right. Right.

SM:
And you do not get a gist of anything.

ME:
Yeah, it was a wonderful show. And it showed sort of an openness to discussion debate, which is what most of us want, especially at the university. Let us hear all sides.

SM:
Yeah. Well, we had Buckley on our campus. It was great.

ME:
Yeah. Yeah.

SM:
And we had a reception with him. And he signed a million different books. But I asked him about the time he had Allen Ginsberg on, because he thought Ginsberg was-

ME:
Right.

SM:
...kind of a flake.

ME:
Right.

SM:
And you could sense he was kind of a flake. And then at the very end, he respected him. Because this flake that he thought was a flake, well, then he answered with really in- Well, then he answered with really in-depth responses, and then in the flight business [inaudible].

ME:
Yeah. No, no, no. There is a lot of thoughtful lefties. The other one I remember is when he had Gore Vidal on and Gore Vidal called him a Nazi, and then Buckley we called him a fag or something and it deteriorated, but I do not know if that was Firing Line or some other show, but that was unusual for Buckley. He kept it at a certain level.

SM:
Two classic books of the period was C Wright Mills in White Collar, which was a book that really explained the IBM mentality of the 19(19)50s and I think a lot of boomers went against that kind of mentality. Daniel Bellow interviewed up at Harvard a couple of weeks ago. He is pretty up there in years now.

SM:
There we go.

SM:
There we go.

SM:
And Daniel Bell wrote The End of Ideology, which I think is a great book too. I do not know if I asked this earlier, but you were too young, but what are your thoughts on the free speech movement at Berkeley, because it happened in 64 and 65, and it was really about the right of free speech?

ME:
Well, I am all...

SM:
On the campus itself, and that kind of was the beginning of all the protests really.

ME:
I am all for free speech, but now it's conservatives that need free speech and in fact, conservatives of some campuses have free speech clubs because they're not allowed to express conservative views for the most part, because it may not be politically correct, whether it's about racial preferences or views about homosexuality or whatever. I am all for civil free speech. We do not have to go after each other personally, but now on most campuses, it's conservatives that are seeking free speech. You go into a woman's studies course and try to have free speech, I mean, the occasional professional might allow it, but most will not. I mean, I hear this from the girls. They do not know ... Most stay away from the women's studies. My own son at Catholic University had a feminist professor for communications course, and so he wrote a straightforward paper about communications. She gave him a C and said, "RJ, you really have to study this more carefully." The next paper I gave him some of the stupid, the Patriarchy is oppressive to women. It was about advertising the car ads, and women are subjugated under their heavy hand. In the paper he wrote this stupid stuff. She does all these checks, " RJ, now you understand," she gave him an A. This is in my own family. He was on a scholarship. He needed the A, so he wrote these idiot papers for the whole semester. She gave him A's. Who needs free speech, huh?

SM:
Well, yeah. I have been in higher ed for thirty-something years and that...

ME:
I am sure you were a wonderful professor who welcomed different points of view that were reasoned, but an awful lot of them do not.

SM:
Yeah. My greatest conversations were in my office over the issues you are talking about. I just say, "Well do what they did in the (19)60s. Protest. Challenge the vice president of student affairs." Anyways, who are the great conservative women that you are talking about? Of course, I know about Clare Boothe Luce. What makes some of these people today...

ME:
Well.

SM:
Were there any others besides Clare Boothe Luce and Margaret Chase Smith, this...

ME:
She had a saying, Mrs. Luce, and in fact, we have it on our newsletter. I should get you one. It is called the Luce Ladder. "Courage is the ladder upon which all other virtues climb," something like that. What makes them great? First off, they are smart, they are beautiful, they are articulate, but they have the courage to stand up and say what is perhaps politically unpopular. That is Bay Buchanan on immigration.

SM:
I know Bay real well.

ME:
That is Carrie Prejean. She gave an honest answer. She is not a politician. Her thoughts about traditional marriage, Michelle Bachman, everything. I mean, she is tough. S.E. Cupp, she is pretty new. A star says welfare hurts Black families. Phyllis, we just talked about her, ERA. I mean, it is courage. It is the courage, and this is what we do here at Clare Boothe Luce. We try, not everybody is going to be up at the podium, giving the speech arguing professor, but whatever venue women are comfortable in, we try to give them the courage, the background, the depth of knowledge, the encouragement to stand up and defend their own conservative beliefs. Courage is the key.

SM:
Well, I think that they need to be seen more on college campuses, because that is what the (19)60s were about.

ME:
That is right.

SM:
The (19)60s were about standing up for what you believe in and if you understand the definition of integrity, integrity means I know who I am. I know what I stand for, and I am willing to stand up in front of an audience, become vulnerable and stand up for my beliefs, even though I may be attacked.

ME:
Right, and I mean, if that is what the (19)60s free speech movement was about, what a sad commentary on where we are now.

SM:
Yeah. That is what it was about.

ME:
Yeah. Let us have all points of view. Now, I was not for closing down the university for trashing the professor doing defense research, his office, that kind of thing, but different points of view, sure.

SM:
I noticed that you had a couple speeches that you give the listings of your speeches, and one of them was the failures of feminism.

ME:
Right.

SM:
What are the failures of feminism? What are they just real quick?

ME:
Well, the modern radical feminist movement, the greatest failures that they do not represent the use of most women. The leadership based on their own quotes and the things they have to say, too often, they mock women who choose to be full-time mothers. Not all of them, but enough of them do. They criticize women who do not toe the line, certainly on the life issue or the choice issue, whatever you want to call it. I mean, they are brutal about that. They do not represent women. A lot of them, I mean, when you go downtown to NOW and you go into the office, National Organization for Women, I will tell you what is going to be on the big table in the front. About a third of it will be about AIDs, about a third of it will be about lesbianism, and then the other third will be about abortions. I mean, they have really narrowed the focus in a lot of ways or go to their website or go to the feminist majority. I mean, lesbianism, AIDs, and abortion. This does not represent women.

SM:
That is interesting because Susan Broma was almost said the very same thing as a liberal.

ME:
There you go.

SM:
She said that she tried to raise the issue of pornography within the women's movement and Feminine Mystique... I forgot her name, Betty Friedan.

ME:
Yeah-yeah.

SM:
Would have nothing to it. No, we are not going to be talking about pornography.

ME:
Yeah. Well, that is interesting.

SM:
Yeah. I have that on tape, and it got very frustrating, she said. Also, you mentioned here, comment on your speech, "Women's studies, conservatives not welcome." I think you have already gone over that. Did you have any gap with your kids, any generation gap at all with any of them on issues?

ME:
I had three boys. The biggest challenge for my husband and I was the social pressures on the boys to do things that were not acceptable, but they all turned out okay. They all go to church. My mom and dad lived across the street for years, and I took care of them like you did yours. My kids were so respectful and so helpful to my parents, and that was wonderful for them. They turned out pretty conservative, but we did not really beat it into them. One of them is really an active conservative. The other two are just kind of go about their business. No, I mean, it was the social pressure. It was the drinking. It was all the friends doing marijuana. It was the sexual promiscuity, but we got through it. They are all in their twenties and they are all doing well.

SM:
That is good. You did not have any generation gap with your parents, did you in any way?

ME:
No, but some of my siblings did. I loved them.

SM:
Yeah.

ME:
I got along with them. When you were a teenager, they would get on your nerves, but my father moved down here and he said, "Do you think I could move across the street?" And I said, "Well, it would be fine with me, but check with Ron," and Ron said, "Sure." I mean, I got along with him, but I know not everybody does. I feel truly blessed to have had him.

SM:
The other thing, I got just about four more.

ME:
Okay. All right.

SM:
The issue of the term empowerment. We had Tom Hayden on our campus several years back, and he wanted to know if the students of student government, what kind of power they had. They were talking about that they were empowered. They said, "Oh, yeah, we can control the budgets and give out money to student organizations," but there is something that Tom said, "No, I am talking about empowerment, where you have a voice and everything." Empowerment is a term that is defined by activist students in the (19)60s, in the early (19)70s, not power, but which term do you like best? Empowerment or power? Because empowerment is really a (19)60s term that came out all the time. Students always said, "I want to be empowered. I want my voice in the decisions that this university makes." It was much more...

ME:
Aren’t they different? Aren’t they different subjects? The university president has power, okay.

SM:
Yes.

ME:
He has a tremendous amount of power to make decisions. The head of your department has a tremendous amount of power. Hiring, firing, or whatever tenure. Empowerment is, to me, it is somebody who feels they do not have power and they want to have a bigger voice.

SM:
Yeah. That is what the (19)60s was about.

ME:
Right power, to me, is sort of more absolute. Empowerment is having a little bit to say about this and that and being listened to.

SM:
Do you like the term empowerment then with respect to women's issues? Like the conservative students?

ME:
I am for power myself.

SM:
Well, that is all I need to hear. The issue of healing, and we took a group of students to Washington, DC in the mid (19)90s, and they came up with this question. We met with Senator Musky.

ME:
Oh, yeah.

SM:
About six months before he passed away.

ME:
Oh, yeah.

SM:
And we thought he was going to respond about the year 1968 because he was the nominee for the vice president. The question was this, that the students came up with, "Due to the divisions that took place in the (19)60s between black and white, male and female, gay and straight, those who were for the war and against those who supported the troops or were against it. Do you feel the boomer generation, those born between 1946 and (19)64, are going to go to their graves like the Civil War generation, not healing from the divisions of that time?" The question is really, do you think that many within the boomer generation that were involved in the activism are having issues that they have not healed?

ME:
No. I think most people move on with life and life is what it is. We certainly change our views on different things. I mean, think about when you were 16, and then when you are a parent with your own kids, and it is life that changes and heals you. You are tired of your parents saying this and that, and then suddenly you are a parent, and you have kids. It is a part of the growth and development that we all go through in life that makes us heal because it just moves on.

SM:
Do you think though, if Safers had Phyllis Schlafly sitting here and Betty Friedan, not Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem is next to her, that the divisions that they have had, that they can heal between their divisions, is that practical or?

ME:
I mean, does heal mean agree or just be civil?

SM:
Just be civil.

ME:
Yeah. I think they could be civil.

SM:
Yeah, because there is a lot of lack of civility today.

ME:
Oh, Bay here does TV shows with some of these lefty women, and I will not name names, but she...

SM:
Yeah, she is really good.

ME:
She has told me that they will sit in the green room and talk about all the common things moms and wives talk about, and then they go out and-

SM:
Okay, that is good.

ME:
But I do think that women, there is always stuff we can talk about. Men too, whether it is sports or whatever, but women talk about husbands, talk about children, whether you are lefties or not. I mean some anyway, so you find the common ground and you do that with your neighbors. You do not talk politics, or we do not. We talk about the kids or the street or the shrubbery or whatever.

SM:
I think that that war in Vietnam really divided this nation in so many ways and that some people have said, you need to rephrase the question. Those who were against the war and those who went to war, because I think there is still some things going on there that really...

ME:
Yeah, but I mean, we have had these subsequent wars, and we have had 911, and we have had the fall of the Soviet Union, and even people who may be opposed, the war supported it, these other things have changed them. So healing, yeah.

SM:
How about the issue of trust? Because a lot of the students of that particular period, I do not even say them, the conservative students too, especially the young Americans for freedom, is they did not trust people that were in positions of authority that were running the war. I mean, a lot of the students of that era did not trust anybody in a position of responsibility, whether it be a priest, rabbi, minister, vice president of student affairs, congressman, senator, you name it, President of the United States. Anyone who is in position of authority, I cannot trust. Do you see that as a negative within the generation, or?

ME:
No, I think it is a great thing. Look at the tea parties. Believe me, these are people who do not trust those in authority. I think skepticism about government is always a good thing, and people in authority questioning is a good thing.

SM:
Yeah. That is what political science majors are taught.

ME:
Yeah.

SM:
Not having trust for your government is healthy.

ME:
Absolutely.

SM:
It means liberty is alive, and well.

ME:
The founding fathers did not have trust.

SM:
Yeah.

ME:
That is why they got all these different protections.

SM:
Yeah, that is pretty much... Finally, here I have, what do the following mean to you? And these are...

ME:
Oh, trust, but verify. That was the other one.

SM:
Oh, trust but verify. Yes.

ME:
Trust but verify. Okay.

SM:
Yes.

ME:
Okay, you can go ahead.

SM:
There is something else that Ronald Reagan said that I have always kind of lived with. If you are not afraid to let someone else get the credit...

ME:
Yeah. It is amazing what you can accomplish.

SM:
Yes.

ME:
And that is true.

SM:
It is important.

ME:
Absolutely.

SM:
That is a great quote.

ME:
I do that every day here at Clare Boothe Luce. Give them the credit.

SM:
What do the following mean to you? What does the Vietnam Memorial mean to you?

ME:
Well, it means the controversy because the architect was opposed to the war, and many people felt that her design was not noble and what it should have been to honor those who lost their lives, but I know a lot of Americans go there and very much appreciate seeing the names of their loved ones.

SM:
When you went there for the first time, what is the impact that had on you?

ME:
I did not go. I have not gone.

SM:
You have not gone yet?

ME:
No, I do not. I will be-be too emotional.

SM:
Yeah. I go to about ten times a year.

ME:
It is like, no, I have not been in the Holocaust Museum. This place would give me such nightmares, I know. Somebody was talking about it the other day. I do not watch movies that are really horrible. It is just my head, the way it is. Stuff goes on and on and on in my head. It is like, life is too short.

SM:
What does Kent State and Jackson State mean to you? It was a major event in 1970.

ME:
It is like, who shot first? What a horrible thing, but there has been some stuff out recently that it was not the soldiers who shot first, but what a horrible thing that should not happen on college campuses. It was such an incendiary time. It was such an emotional time, but if I am a soldier and I am shot at, I am going to shoot back. Who knows who shot first?

SM:
I know that there is a tape out now that they're bringing a revelation that the National Guard was given orders to shoot. They are revealing that. The March on Washington 63, what did that mean to you?

SM:
Civil rights?

SM:
Yes. Dr. King, that great...

ME:
If only we would have listened to him. "Judge my children not by the color of skin, but the content of their character." Excuse me, what are we calling affirmative action, huh? Aren’t we judged by the color of the skin? If only we would have listened to him.

SM:
Yeah. I know the purpose of affirmative action. If you talk to an affirmative action director at a university, they will say is that we do not want to have affirmative action. That is the goal, but they still have it as far as...

ME:
All these years later in the Supreme Court cases. In fact, I have got a black girl as an intern this summer. Vincy Ann, native of Cameroon, now she is a citizen. She said, people come up to her on campus, she goes to Truman State, and say, "Well, you must be for affirmative action." She says it drives her crazy. She is studied, she has worked hard, she has gotten to college. It is such a negative thing for achievement-oriented minorities.

SM:
It is interesting because Steven Carter, the great professor at Yale who wrote a book on affirmative action and says, in the beginning of his book, every time I go into my law school classes at Yale, I know the students are looking at me saying I got here because of affirmative action and that is real sensitive to him because he earned it because he was smart.

ME:
That is the downside of it. We had a friend who was at Georgetown, a Black kid, and teachers would come up him, how are you? He said it was so condescending. He was at law school there.

SM:
What is 1968 Chicago? That convention, what did that mean to you?

ME:
A bunch of rowdy criminals.

SM:
Do you believe that happened in our country? It is just like..

ME:
When I see this world, the money economic things, sort of like rent a riot, rent a mob, what a horrible group. People that got stuck in those crowds and were afraid for their life. I mean, that is no way to behave.

SM:
How about Woodstock in (19)69 and the summer of love in (19)67? They get the real counter cultural events.

ME:
A bunch of people who, I guess liked music but dirty and having sex out on the ground and drinking and drugging and no thanks.

SM:
How about the hippies and the yippies?

ME:
Yeah.

SM:
Hippies and yippies.

ME:
I mean, not people I especially admire.

SM:
How about the students for democratic society before they became the weatherman and the weatherman...

ME:
Before they came radical, they were a point of view. That is a fine thing.

SM:
And the weatherman need...

ME:
Right. Blowing things up.

SM:
Yeah. What about the Black Panthers? Did you...

ME:
Well, I know this last election, there was a Black Panther standing outside the Philadelphia polling station with a bat to discourage certain people from voting and Eric Calder, our attorney journal, said, no, I am not going to look into this.

SM:
I know. That is the new Black Panthers.

ME:
I mean, I think they are violence prone and probably not the best vehicle to promote racial harmony.

SM:
How about the Vietnam veterans against the war in 1971, they threw their...

ME:
John Kerry.

SM:
John Kerry, but he was a mild one compared to most.

ME:
Right. We took care of him with sweep up veterans.

SM:
Bobby Mueller was in that group, I know that. I think Ron Kovic was in the group.

ME:
Right.

SM:
Actually, Bobby Mueller was not. He made a point of saying I did not become a member of the Vietnam veterans against the war.

ME:
It is a point of view. It is fine, but I do not think it played too well with the American people. When Carrie... A story was told over and over.

SM:
How about Earth Day 1970?

ME:
Everybody loves the earth, the land, take good care of it, but it's become a religion to some of these folks. Especially in the schools with the little kids. Cannot talk about God, but they have this religious fervor about recycling.

SM:
How about NOW? National Organization for Women.

ME:
What a pathetic excuse for a woman's group. They are just hostile to anybody who does not toe their line. They do not support the women. Often, they will support the man if he is a more left-winger. Do not call yourself NOW. This is great American conservative women. Say what you are. The national organization for left-wing liberal feminist women. Say what you are. Do not pretend.

SM:
Wouldn’t it be great to be able to bring these individuals together with the other side and really have a two- or three-day learning experience? This is what I want to do. I have only got two more questions. This is what I want to do, but after my book is done, I want to bring people together. I am going to start something where I am bringing people together. I just talked to James Fallows, the symposium about the Vietnam War with the General Wheeler and Bobby Mueller and Sam Brown and Susan Jacobi. I said, "Wouldn’t it be great to bring you guys back together from after 1975?"

ME:
I think it would be. Make sure [inaudible] there so everybody can watch.

SM:
Well, I would like to bring these people together because first off, I have worked with so many different speakers, and this is all about education in our students.

ME:
It is.

SM:
This is about the future.

ME:
Right. It is about hearing all kinds of different ideas.

SM:
Stonewall, which was the major event for gay and lesbians in (19)69, any thoughts on that? Because that was the rallying crime for...

ME:
Not really. I mean, the truth is there has always been homosexuals since the beginning of time, and there always will be. In terms of the movement, for a long, long time, what they talked about was people ought to be tolerant. You know what? Most Americans are intolerant, but it has shifted from tolerance to, I want you to affirm what we do, and that is what most Americans resist. Tolerant? Sure. I mean, I do not want to know what you do at night, but then do not get on my face and say, "You need to say that what we're doing is a really good thing," because I am not going to say that, and that is the division, and that is the problem with the movement.

SM:
I think the one area is the American Indian movement because they were here first, and that is a very sensitive issue. They have always been in... Dennis Banks was...

ME:
Right.

SM:
And of course, Alcatraz. Taking over the Alcatraz in (19)69 and the violence at Wounded Knee, but just your thoughts on the Native American movement, because...

ME:
They are right. They were here first, but go around the world and how many countries where the people that were there first no longer run the show? For American Indians, I mean, if there was ever an example of how the government can ruin a whole group of people by paternalism and over-involvement, it is the American Indians and the reservations and the massive failures that the government intervention has had there and the terrible problems they have. Alcoholism, that, I mean, the casinos, I guess, have helped them in an economic way, but is that a beautiful example of too much government in the lives of a people?

SM:
Yeah, I know. So, the Latina, everybody thinks the Caesar Chavez, but it's much more than that because the young Lords were kind of copycats to the Black Panthers in the late (19)60s. I know in Newark that was the case.

ME:
Yeah.

SM:
The Watergate.

ME:
Yeah.

SM:
What is your thoughts on Watergate? Took an administration down.

ME:
What a stupid thing. Dishonesty, but what I always think about with Watergate is the contrast between Nixon when he was quartered and Clinton. Nixon resigned and it was over Clinton. It went on and on and on and on. He was impeached. He was not convicted, but it went on and on and on. This is the difference, the two men. People love to hate Nixon, but to me, Nixon cared more about the country than Clinton because he just got out. It was over. Was what Clinton did any less bad, lying under oath, blow jobs with the girl in the Oval Office, all that stuff, than Nixon? No, but what they did, the way they reacted when the whole country was in such a turmoil about it, that says something to me. I give Nixon more credit than I do Clinton.

SM:
Two last questions. The music of the era, just from the experience that you have had with conservative students, not only now, but back then, the music was part of the culture back then, and it was also might have been identified more with the liberals as opposed to the conservatives. When you talked about the folk music, the rock music, the Motown sound, and the messages that were in that music, did you identify with that music?

ME:
Sure. I mean, I danced. I liked it. I sang.

SM:
Were you a Beatles fan, like everybody? And how about Bob Dylan?

ME:
I want to hold your hand. Not as much Dylan.

SM:
Joan Baez and the [inaudible]?

ME:
No, not as much the folk. I mean, different tastes. My husband's a Stones fan. I do not know if you know.

SM:
Yeah, Rolling Stones.

ME:
He argues they are basically conservative. They think about the tax fan and all that, but I think that the music then was tame compared to some of this rap music about the hoes and raping the girls and all this kind of stuff. I mean, the worst they would get was the leader of the pack and I do not know, going to the drive-in movie and it was sort of tame.

SM:
What do you think, I know it is very difficult to say this for 74 million people, but when the best books are written on a particular era, it is normally 50 years after an event. A lot of the best World War II books have been written, are being written now. What do you think when the boomers have all passed away? This is a little longer, and what do you think historians and sociologists will be writing, because they will not have been alive when the boomers were alive. What do you think they will say about this baby boom generation that grew up after World War II and the events that shaped them in their time?

ME:
Well, it is all compared to what, I mean, I think they will say that a lot of us worked really hard, did what we believed in, raised our families, paid an awful lot of money to the government that wasted it in taxes, did our best, the technology boom, we were part of that. Freeing millions of people from communist oppression, and they will talk about the mistakes. And I am not sure what that will be. It probably would be electing Obama is one. Say we repeal healthcare and a couple of other things, which a lot of people want to do. They will talk about those things, and whether it was right or whether it was wrong, but I think that historians will write kindly.

SM:
Do you think they will say what the issues that we are facing today with the economy, this attitude that many of the boomers had that I want it now, I need it now. The students, these young people, conservative and liberal, grew up in the (19)50s when parents wanted to give them everything. They wanted to make life better because they grew up in the Depression and experienced World War II. Even in the African American community, that was, well, even though it was more stable in the (19)50s than it ever was in the (19)60s. Do you think that want it now mentality, even though in a very analytical way, is a reason why we're in some of the problems we are today? Because the people that run the world today are really boomers and the oldest of the generation X-ers, which is the group that followed them,

ME:
I am not sure want it now is the reason for the problems we have. I mean, you look through history. The problems we have now, throughout the centuries, people have had it. Different times, different circumstances. I am not sure I would attribute it to the boomers want it now.

SM:
Do you think that the Susan B Anthony's and the Elizabeth Katie Stanton would, if they were to see what was happening today in America, and the women's movement would be right with your...

ME:
I do.

SM:
They would be here...

ME:
On abortion, they were a hundred percent for life.

SM:
See, that is something that really should be brought up within the women's studies programs too, so that everybody sees clearly. Is there any questions that I did not ask that you thought I was going to ask?

ME:
No, you asked a lot. In fact, I wondered what is he going to ask?

SM:
Well, thank you very much.

ME:
Well, thank you.

SM:
Let me at...

(End of Interview)

2010-06-29

Stephen McKiernan

Michelle Easton

122:19

English

Binghamton University Libraries

audio/mp4

Sound

2 Microcassettes

Audio

Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute; United States--Officials and employees; Easton, Michelle--Interviews

Many items in our digital collections are copyrighted. If you want to reuse any material in our collection you must seek permission, or decide if your purpose can qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Law Section 107. If you think copyright or privacy has been violated, the University Libraries will investigate the issue. Please see our take down policy. If using any materials in this online digital collection for educational or research purposes, please cite accordingly.