What counts as fair in writing history?

On March 1, Donald Critchlow, author of Phyllis Schlafly and Grassroots Conservatism, spoke at the New School University on one of the nations leading conservative activists. His fellow historiansLisa McGirr and Paula Bakerwere respondents; I served as moderator though one was hardly neededthe evening, though not uncritical, was civil and amiable.

McGirr teaches at Harvard and her work focuses on grass-root movements so she knows a lot about the kind of women Schlafly galvanized in forming the Religious Right. McGirr like Critchlow thinks Schlafly was central to that development, but missed an analysis of the underpinnings of Schlaflys politics (race was mentioned). Baker teaches at Ohio State and has written on campaign finance, The American Political Industry. Her response: Schlaflys creation of a movement that altered the direction of the Republican Party from moderate to right-wing underlines the danger to political parties of movements that may bring voters and money, but become the tail that wags the dog.

The audience was remarkably civil considering that the New School sits in the middle of Greenwich Village, the home of the bluest navy blue voters in the country. Audience questions focused on: How had Schlafly achieved such clout without ever holding political office, indeed, without most of the audience (or for that matter most New Yorkers) ever paying her the least attention?

The story behind that clout is the theme of Critchlows book.

In contrast to the civility on display at the New School, two reviews of the book are not only critical but ill-tempered. Alan Wolfes tone in the New Republic (October 3, 2005) was particularly surprising since he is usually a judicious and balanced commentator, even when he disagrees. Judith Warner, writing in the New York Times Book Review (January 29, 2006), trashedthe book and accused Critchlow of ignoring the code words internationalism and Wall Street that Schlafly used to mask what Warner sees as anti-Semitism.

Quite a contrast between the panel and the reviewers: The face-to-face encounter of author and fellow historians did not question Critchlows motives; the written reviews questioned both motives and character. Does the distance of reviewing provide greater latitude for ad hominem attacks? Or do face-to-face encounters inhibit respondents from fully expressing their criticism? Or does a serious scholarly treatment of Schlafly send two left-liberals over the edge? Perhaps all of the above. Or perhaps disciplinary differences enter here. Do historians have a different perspective on what their discipline requireswhat counts as history?

Critchlows book is very much a straightforward telling of Schlaflys story based on research in her archives. If he comes up short on analysis, interpretation and, for his critics, judgment, does that undermine the value of the information he has unearthed? For the historians, the sheer amount of new information will prove valuable. But for the sociologist and pundit, Critchlows failure to condemn Schlafly outweighs what we tells us about her, which is probably more than most of us want to know. Since I always thought of her as a crazy old lady in tennis shoes, I am sobered to know that her Convent of the Sacred Heart manners, lady-like demeanor, strong conservative Catholic convictions, and well-off husband counted for a great deal in where our countrys politics have landed.

But you can decide for yourself; here are the sources:

• Phyllis Schlafly and Grassroots Conservatism: A Womans Crusade (Princeton University Press);
• Alan Wolfe, Mrs. America, New Republic (October 3, 2005);
• Judith Warner, She Changed America, New York Times Book Review, January 29, 2006, with replyby Critchlow, February 26, 2006.

The webcast can be found here.