Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Thomas Sowell on Phyllis Schlafly
Earlier today the Blue Yeti and I recorded a new episode of Uncommon Knowledge with Thomas Sowell. Just before the cameras started to roll, he mentioned how much he had admired the late Phyllis Schlafly, who first came to public attention by opposing–and ultimately defeating–the proposed “equal rights amendment” to the Constitution.
“Phyllis Schlafly,” Tom said, “had an absolutely crucial insight. In our time, ‘equal rights’ means ‘special privileges.'”
Thomas Sowell, once again saying everything that needs to be said.
Published in General
So true, because somehow it has become accepted that “Equal rights = Equal Outcomes”.
Unfortunately, since this is a fallacy; the only way to produce equal outcomes is to “fix” the process such that “Equal Rights” adjusted for “Lack of Privilege” requires “Special Privilege” for those who are ” Less Privileged”.
Which adjustments, paradoxically, are only available to the privileged; either via Crony Capitalism, Severe Victimhood, or both.
Which, full circle, brings us to the Clinton foundation.
I’m glad to hear that we will be getting another Thomas Sowell episode of Uncommon Knowledge! Dr. Sowell is one of the best.
Not to seem superficial but in addition to that wonderful intellect, his Harlem/Brooklyn accent is charming.
I was thinking the same thing! Dr. Sowell’s insight on an array of topics has not ceased to amaze me. I was shocked when I realized that he was in his 80s and still sharp as a tack.
Recently, I had seen a quick post or something on Twitter about Phyllis Schlafly. But whomever “tweeted” clearly despised her because she did not back LGBT rights nor same-sex marriage.
Peter, where can I find the Uncommon Knowledge program you did with the “First Lady of Conservatism,” Phyllis Schlafly, a woman whose incredible battle against the Equal Rights Amendment exhibited actual uncommon knowledge?
Not to be difficult, but since I picketed the White House, back in the day, for the ERA…why, again, was it such a problem? That is, it seems to me now that the ERA was merely unnecessary, though it would not have seemed so to Alice Paul, who originally proposed the thing back in 1922.
Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.[2][3]
A lot of the greats that are still around are up there in age now. Both Thomas Sowell and Dr. Walter E. Williams are in their 80s. The bad thing is that I don’t see anyone rising to replace them one day. Like when Bill Buckley died, I fear that we aren’t going to be able to find someone who can rise to their level.
Which is why I take in as much as I can from these men, as long as they are alive.
There are entire books based on that subject Kate. The basic premise though was that women would lose special privileges that exist solely because they exist to protect women, and have no “equal” aspect to it for men. Many of these laws would no doubt be struck down as discriminatory, because they give special privileges to women (usually stay at home mothers).
Also the fact that drafting women would be much easier with the ERA enacted. If the ERA had passed I’ve no doubt that there would be even less resistance against the movement to make women sign up for the draft.
You’ll love the show, Jerome, and everyone–and you’ll love the podcast that James, Jon, and I just recorded with Dr. Sowell. Utterly compelling. Also one of the loveliest men I’ve ever known.
Alas! I never did record a show with her.
The only time I ever actual saw her on TV was a couple of times on CSPAN. I’m not sure she did many sit down style interviews, she mostly seemed to enjoy debates and giving speeches.She did sit down with Buckley on Firing Line where she debated the ERA.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyv5Fw0JSk
For those interested in purchasing the episode, you can find it here.
Schlafly’s long career is not one I’ve studied closely. Did she oppose women having equal rights? The option for women’s rights advocates from the suffragettes onward, should have always been between equal rights or traditional privileges. In other words: have cake or eat cake.
It’s also plausible that the prospect of women being drafted would be an effective motivator for ending the draft altogether. That has its appeal.
@catiii, @tylerboliver, @peterrobinson, @katebraestrup, @dadoffour
No, no, no – There were a lot of technical and practical reasons Schlafly argued and used to defeat the ERA, but they were not why she opposed it.
She opposed it because she was a real conservative, not a mealy-mouthed, apologetic, zeitgeist- accepting Bush or Romney conservative.
Read the damned thing! The ERA was an open-ended permission slip for government to meddle everywhere. It was antithetical to the founding documents of this country which explicitly LIMIT the writ of the federal government. It was at its heart UnAmerican. That’s why Schlafly, a true patriot, put her life on hold to stop its passage.
That even on Ricochet this fact is not immediately obvious is pathetic.
And Peter, I was giving you the needle with my earlier comment. I knew you never did a segment with Schlafly. After all, why bother with her when you can interview real conservatives like Arthur Brooks instead?
Love this comment. The whole comment, really, but this part sticks out so beautifully bold.
I was born in 1970, so I don’t really remember too much about the ERA battle personally, but my dad was active in the Right to Life party in New York, and my mom helped found a local Feminists for Life group, and they viewed the ERA as inimical to unborn human life, since the idea that pregnancy is a punishment for women was already prevalent and equality would mean the ability to become unpregnant would be required by law. Also, women would have to be drafted and serve in the military, and the military could not place any restrictions on service having to do with sex. Never mind bathroom issues. Could we have single-sex schools?
Basically, they viewed it as a completely unnecessary amendment to the Constitution unless its purpose was social engineering.
Which was its purpose, pure and simple.
It was an abomination.
No she was for civil rights in the suffragettes meaning of the term, which she argued for. You can buy the episode where she debates the issue on Firing Line for a couple of bucks on the link I provided if you are really interested.
As we see today that simply isn’t the case. People are still attempting to make it so women have to sign up with the draft, even though we haven’t drafted anyone in decades. The person who stopped the draft from affecting peoples lives, was Milton Friedman who argued against it with Richard Nixon.
That’s why it hasn’t been used lately, but it still exist, and there are people who want to force women to sign up for the draft, just as men do, all in the nae of “equality”. Of course the fact that we have an all volunteer army know doesn’t seem to matter, it’s always the symbolism that these people are after.
Unintended consequences of ending the draft.
You do know that she endorsed both Romeny and Dubya right? Hell she even endorsed McCain in the end. For all the talk of being a “real conservative” she basically followed the party line when all was said and done. I’ve never heard of her sitting out a Presidential election based on principle. Even after Nixon endorsed ERA she threw her entire support behind him in 1968 against Ronald Reagan.
I’ll take a superior fighting force every time. Since the world was a “draft society” in the 60s and 70s, I’m not sure you can say having a draft decreases the fragmentation of society. The military didn’t really turn itself around until after the draft ended, they could then start to promote professionalism again.
I’m not sure I accept some of your contentions.
Donald T. Critchlow, director of the Center for Political Thought and Leadership at Arizona State University, is author of “Phyllis Schlafly and Grassroots Conservatism” and “Future Right: Forging a a New Republican Majority.”
Quoted in the Washington Post, September 8, 2016.
However, my point about Schlafly had to do specifically with her non-electoral activism against the ERA, a left-wing wet dream that was cruising to ratification with plenty of mainstream Republican support until she stood athwart history and yelled “Stop!”
@cbtoderakamamatoad: This is interesting. At least in my small world (I was 14, 15, 16 at the time) I understood it to mean that where it says “All Men Are Created Equal,” women were to be included, with all that implies in terms of rights and responsibilities. In other words, your basic Classical Liberal thing.
I suppose we also imagined that, in some dystopian future a Margaret-Atwood-Inspired Patriarchal Megalomaniac could, for his own purposes, point to the founding documents and say “see? It says MEN!” and oppress the bajeezus out of us on that basis. But that doesn’t seem to be the direction we’re going, and the ERA turned out to be, essentially, unnecessary.
But I’ll get the interview—thank you for linking it.
@freesmith: Ah yes. Section Two. Got it.
And the Living Constitution folks make it pretty clear that the temptation for “government to meddle everywhere” remains a real and probably eternal danger.