Following the 2018 Election, pt. 3 – Why Money Matters

by Betty O’Shaughnessy and Dick Simpson, authors of Winning Elections in the 21st Century

Trump triumphed in 2016 when he won the Electoral College vote, even

though he lost the popular vote by 3 million votes. We have seen how much this matters in the year since he has become President, which is especially true because the Republicans also won both houses of Congress, allowing President Trump to carry out his platform promises, creating major changes in tax policy, immigration, foreign policy, trade and making Supreme Court and lower court appointments. There is broad resistance to those Trump policies, but by executive orders and the momentum of the first year of his presidency, he continues often to get his way in changing the country’s direction.

Trump’s victorious campaign strategy emphasizing charisma and addressing voters’ anger won out won over that of the less charismatic candidate Hillary Clinton following a careful game plan. Anger in both political parties – as reflected in the Democrats supporting Bernie Sanders and Trump Republican voters – reflected real needs and a high level of discontent.

The recent Illinois primaries were the second national primary elections after those earlier in the month in Texas and they are a harbinger of things to come in November. The biggest battle in 2018 is the attempt of the Democrats to gain 24 seats in the House of Representatives and two seats in the Senate to retake control of one or both houses of Congress in order to block further Trump administration policies.

Results from the Illinois election show higher voter turnout in a greater number of contested elections. Early voting and absentee voting was more than double the 2010 and 2014 midterm elections and the final vote tallies show that 2018 Illinois voter turnout exceeded 30%, as compared to the midterm general election of 2014 when only 16 percent turned out. While not as high a turnout as desirable, these figures show that voters perceived the choices to be important. As is usual in a midterm election, the party out of power was energized, with Democrats voting twice as heavily as Republicans.

The Democratic races were mostly close and interesting. In the gubernatorial race, Pritzker won the Democratic vote easily while Rauner barely beat Jeanne Ives, his opponent in the Republican primary. If we divide the total amount spent by the campaign with his total number of votes, Rauner paid $215 for each vote, and Pritzker paid nearly as much. In the attorney general race, Kwame Raoul defeated former Governor Pat Quinn and six other candidates. In the Cook County assessor race incumbent Democrat Joe Berrios, an ally of controversial Party Chairman Mike Madigan, was defeated by Fritz Kaegi. Significantly, Jesus “Chuy” Garcia was elected to Congress and the progressive Latino candidates he supported defeated even incumbent State Legislator Daniel J. Burke, a relative of powerful Chicago alderman Ed Burke.

This sets the stage for the other 2018 elections and the 2020 races to follow, and it is clear that those elections will follow the strategies spelled out in our book, Winning Elections in the 21st Century

21st Century Campaigns: the Increasing Role of Money and Online Data Analyitics

Money

There were other lessons in the 2016 and 2018 elections, specifically, the important roles both money and computer-generated data analytics will play in most future elections. In terms of campaign funding, every election seems to be more expensive than the last. 2016 was one the most expensive elections in American history, with at least $1.3 billion being spent by presidential candidates, $1 billion by candidates for the House of Representatives and $700 million on the U.S. Senate contests. In the most expensive race for Illinois State Legislature in 2016, the candidates spent from $106 to $113 for each of the 20,000 votes they each received.

Nonetheless, any campaign begins with a budget and the contribution that the candidate and his or her family are willing to contribute so you know how much you need to raise, whether it is $10,000 or a million dollars. You could have the best candidate in the world the best campaign theme, and an inferior opponent, and still lose. You have to raise money to be taken seriously as a candidate. To run for alderman or state legislator you have to raise at least $250,000; Congressional races cost over a million dollars, and Statewide races for U.S. Senate or Governor cost tens of millions.

Unless you are independently wealthy like Donald Trump, or the Illinois gubernatorial candidates Bruce Rauner or J. B. Pritzker, you have to raise money from contributors including wealthier individuals and groups like Labor Union or Business PACs. Beyond campaign fundraising parties and web site requests for donations, the primary secret to raising money is to have the candidate personally ask prospects herself. Several hours a day a staff member or volunteer literally places calls for the candidate to the prospect list who have usually received a letter of solicitation beforehand.

Candidates simply hate to do fundraising calls, but even though it seems to them too much like begging, they still have to make the calls every day if they want to be elected. Once elected, our congressional representatives spend from 2-4 hours a day making fundraising calls for their next election.

In addition to the one-on-one fundraising calls to individuals and PAC officials, money is raised by positioning a contribute button prominently on the campaign web site and by sending frequent emails or social media messages to all campaign supporters for smaller campaign contributions from $5 to $500. These small amounts add up; the average campaign contribution to the Bernie Sanders campaign was $27. The secret is that once someone has given online or in person, they can be solicited again and again. These online messages are frequently tested with smaller groups until the campaign determines the most effective “ask” to produce the best results when sent to the entire list of supporters.

In 2018 in Illinois, we had the most expensive gubernatorial primary in American history with Democratic challenger Pritzker spending almost $70 million and Republican incumbent Rauner spending over $75 million; the next three candidates (two Democrats, one Republican) spent over $13 million total. This election alone affirms that we desperately need real public funding of campaigns or “Small D Democracy,” as advocates call it.

Voter Analytics

The second element that 21st century campaigns now include (on top of the traditional campaign strategies) is the increased used of voter analytics with online campaigning. Some of you are Democrats and would never vote for a Republican and some of you are Republicans and would almost never vote for a Democrat. In old Chicago the Democratic precinct captains would know who would vote for their party’s slate of candidates, but now with computer analytic tools anyone with enough money and computer savvy can know.

Take the example of Tea Party conservative David Brat, who ran for Congress in Virginia’s Republican 2014 primary election. With only $200,000 in his war chest, he beat then Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, who spent over $5 million in his campaign. Brat simply got more of his people out to vote by using voter analytics to find the voters who could be persuaded to cast ballots against Cantor.

Similarly, Winning Elections tells the story of how now-Illinois State Senator Will Guzzardi was able to use voter analytics in an Illinois state legislative race to defeat Chicago Democratic Party Boss Joe Berrios’ daughter, despite the best efforts of their allies to keep her in the state legislature.

Voter analytics combines information about who voted in each election with personal information gleaned from credit card purchases and Internet browsing, then adds voter responses from campaign contacts. Thus, in a Chicago ward that may have less than 20,000 voters, analytics can find and rank potential supporters your campaign should contact, which in this case would be less than 10,000. The Obama Presidential campaigns used a scale from 1-100 and any voters who scored higher than 65 were “must contacts.” The usual system uses “+”, “—“, and zero symbols or a sample scale of 1-5.

The use of analytics can make easier what is still our two most effective method of delivering the campaign message: door-to-door precinct work and phone canvassing. In both instances, voter analytics finds the potential supporters on which a campaign can focus, and can also provide information on how to best approach them.

Social Media

Voter analytics would not be as effective as it is were it not for the exponential growth of social media. Today, most campaigns have a social media component, which tends to evolve to suit its candidates campaign style in each election. For instance, Hillary Clinton’s campaign at first looked like a media start-up with dozens of staff producing original content. She had a blog anchored by five full-time writers. Meanwhile, Donald Trump sat at his computer and sent out missives with more than 5,000 posts on Twitter in the first few months of the primary campaign which, in turn generated 85 million interactions on Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and YouTube. Trump continued this tactic throughout the campaign and election and even now in the White House

Social media campaigns start with a simple looking campaign website with the same colors photos and message as other campaign materials such as brochures and yard signs. Added to that are campaign email lists partly gathered from the web pages of donors, volunteers, and supporters, who are contacted weekly online to contribute, attend events and volunteer. After a campaign has its basic web page and email lists, it establishes social media pages, (at the very least, on Facebook page and Twitter) so that people can follow the campaign and retweet or repost critical messages. For instance, through social media, the Bernie Sanders campaign scheduled 74 phone banking events at homes in the Chicago area, at which volunteers called Iowa voters before the caucuses in February, 2016.

Conclusion

In the end, the 2016 election was one in which the majority of American voted “no!” against the elites and the status quo. There had been more than 4.4 million home foreclosures since the Great Recession began in 2008. There have been no real salary increases for the working and middle class for nearly two decades. Unemployment, especially in ghetto areas and among young adults remains too high. Americans were mad as hell and by their vote they signaled that they weren’t going to take it anymore.

The 2018 election with its turnout twice that of 2014, indicates that voters are still both engaged and divided. On a more positive note, the Texas and Illinois primaries show us that voter participation is up, as are the number of people running for office. How the new and old candidates, Trump supporters and “resisters” alike, reach and motivate these voters is spelled out in Winning Elections in the 21st Century.

 

Dick Simpson is professor of political science at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He is the co-editor with Dennis Judd of The City, Revisited: Urban Theory from Chicago, Los Angeles, New York.

Betty O’Shaughnessy is a visiting lecturer in political science, University of Illinois at Chicago and coauthor of The Struggle for Power and Influence in Cities and States.

 

From the Backlist; For Linda Brown

Linda Brown Thompson, who as a young girl was the student at the center of the landmark Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education, died in Topeka, Kansas. She was 75. In her honor, we share our book on the landmark case.

Before 1954, both law and custom mandated strict racial segregation throughout much of the nation. That began to change with Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark decision that overturned the pernicious “separate but equal” doctrine. In declaring that legally mandated school segregation was unconstitutional, the Supreme Court played a critical role in helping to dismantle America’s own version of apartheid, Jim Crow.

The study of Brown—the title for a group of cases drawn from Kansas, Virginia, South Carolina, Delaware, and the District of Columbia—offers an insightful and original overview designed expressly for students and general readers. It is concise, up-to-date, highly readable, and very teachable.

The authors, all recognized authorities on legal history and civil rights law, do an admirable job of examining the fight for legal equality in its broad cultural and historical context. They convincingly show that Brown cannot be understood apart from the history of caste and exclusion in American society. That history antedated the very founding of the country and was supported by the nation’s highest institutions, including the Supreme Court whose decision in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) supported the notion of “separate but equal.”

AP photo

Their book traces the lengthy court litigations, highlighting the pivotal role of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and including incisive portraits of key players, including co-plaintiff Oliver Brown, newly appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren, NAACP lawyer and future Supreme Court justice Thurgood Marshall, and Justice Felix Frankfurter, who recognized the crucial importance of a unanimous court decision and helped produce it. The authors simply but powerfully narrate the obstacles these individuals faced and the opportunities they grasped and clearly show that there was much more at stake than educational rights. Brown not only changed the national equation of race and caste—it also changed our view of the Court’s role in American life.

The dramatic story of the road to and from Brown, despite the retrenchments of recent years, needs to be heard anew. As we prepare to commemorate the decision’s fiftieth anniversary in May 2004, this book invites readers to walk that road again and appreciate the lasting importance of what is indisputably a landmark case.

“A wide-ranging and important exploration of how ‘caste’ and ‘culture’ have related to the U.S. Constitution. . . . This thoughtful, wise, accessible, and prize-winning book should be kept in print as an exceptional introduction to the thorny issues that led up to Brown v. Board of Education and its long aftermath.” – Journal of Southern History

Tara Kathleen Kelly (The Hunter Elite) Q & A

At the end of the nineteenth century, Theodore Roosevelt, T. S. Van Dyke, and other elite men began describing their big-game hunting as “manly sport with the rifle.” They also began writing about their experiences, publishing hundreds of narratives of hunting and adventure in the popular press (and creating a new literary genre in the process). But why did so many of these big-game hunters publish? What was writing actually doing for them, and what did it do for readers? In exploring these questions, The Hunter Elite reveals new connections among hunting narratives, publishing, and the American conservation movement.

 

1. When did you first have the idea to write The Hunter Elite?

I started out planning to write about exploration and hunting at the beginning of the twentieth century—originally I wanted to examine how wealthy travelers and their guides interacted on expeditions, and this was a great period to study because there were so many narratives published. The more I read, though, the more interested I got in the narratives themselves, just the sheer number of them, and I started asking why so many hunters and amateur explorers suddenly started writing down and publishing their experiences around the turn of the century. That led me into looking at publishing in that era and thinking about what kinds of stories hunters were selling, why they wrote them at all, what their effect on readers were—and, eventually, what consequences they had. It was an odd shift in perspective, because generally historians use texts like these as sources that tell what happened– “this is what occurred on Roosevelt’s safari” (or “this is what Roosevelt says occurred…”)—but putting them into context as desirable economic commodities in a transatlantic publishing marketplace really changes how we see them. By publishing, these hunters also came to dominate the middle-class recreational press, and that really matters. Among other things, it let their version of conservation sweep aside many forms of local and market hunting across North America: they had an international pulpit from which to persuade middle-class readers, because other hunters weren’t writing about what they were doing.

2. Can you describe your process of writing? How long did you spend working on the book?

13 years from beginning to end—but happily I wasn’t writing that whole time, a lot of it was spent teaching! It started as a dissertation, but I was lucky enough to get a postdoctoral fellowship to the Huntington Library, where I found a huge amount of great new material that had to be thought through and incorporated into the MS. I also had fantastic press readers who asked me some really challenging questions, so it got reworked once again because of that. It’s a much stronger book as a result, but I’m glad I didn’t know it was going to take this long when I started it!

As far as process, in grad school I wouldn’t allow myself to check email or go online until my day’s writing was finished, but once I started working full-time I didn’t have that luxury. My biggest fear in revision was coming up with a good conclusion, but when the time came I found I knew exactly what I wanted to say.

3. The Hunter Elite is the first book to explore both the international nature of American hunting at the end of the nineteenth century and the essential contributions of hunting narratives and the publishing industry to the North American conservation movement. Why do you think these topics have not been previously explored?

I might say it’s the first book to explore these topics in the way it does? I’ll tackle the second part first: ever since John Reiger’s foundational work back in 1975, we’ve known that the recreational press promoted conservation, but I investigate the why and how of that—the reasons this group of hunters chose to write and publish stories about their experiences, how they recruited editors and publishers as allies, and how readers were urged to participate. I also argue that the content of the narratives—the ways hunters consistently linked wilderness experience to manliness, self-discipline, the pioneer past, and Americanism—played a huge role when they began talking to readers about conservation, because they brought the same rhetoric to bear. And at that point they really did control the national recreational press, especially Outing Magazine, which was the fastest-growing periodical at the beginning of the twentieth century.

As for the international role, I find it odd that it’s been neglected (except for Roosevelt’s safari). Historians like Greg Gillespie have been doing great work on British hunting in North America, and there’s always been a lot of writing on the continental U.S. West, but by 1900 big game was becoming so scarce that Americans seeking trophies had to travel to Alaska, the Canadian Rockies, British East Africa, or India, so it made sense for me to follow them out there. I’ve always loved comparative history and I got so much out of analyzing the very different ways British and American hunters described their experiences, even when they were on the same hunting grounds or even the same expedition. I also got to go in-depth on the logistics of the safari and the unbelievable skills of African gunbearers, but with a different perspective, since I compare them to Alaskan guides and look at how, on both continents, they negotiated with, befriended, and battled the wealthy hunters who employed them. Canada and Newfoundland are in the mix as well: it’s fascinating to watch U.S. hunters describe Canada as an untouched wilderness while British hunters insist that it’s just another colony. The hunter elite also influenced or even wrote game laws in Canada and Newfoundland, as well as addressing hunting in Mexico, so it really is a North American story (with occasional forays through Africa and India).

4. When most people think of hunting in this period, they think of Theodore Roosevelt. How does he feature in the book?

The problem with Teddy Roosevelt isn’t just that he’s incredibly anomalous compared to all the other American elite hunters, it’s also that he wrote so much that he still dominates our impressions of elite hunting at the turn of the century. I hope that my book contributes to moving the history of elite hunting out from under Teddy’s shadow. The vast majority of American elite hunters in this era celebrated stalking game on foot as a display of manly self-control, and pointed to their refusal to kill even as many animals as allowed by their hunting licenses as proof of self-discipline; in their narratives they avoided discussing violence, war, and imperialism; and many of them liked and respected their guides. Some elite hunters were also women! You can’t see any of that without shifting out from under TR’s shadow, however, and I think sometimes historians working on the culture of the period have assumed that he was representative of elite hunting. Instead he was, as Christopher Lasch once said, compelling but rather bizarre. I certainly discuss him, especially when it comes to conservation, but I really hope this book helps to move the conversation on elite hunting away from this one man and over to the hundreds of other hunters, male and female, who were also publishing narratives of sport in this period. The story they were telling was equally influential and, I think, more interesting because it’s unexpected.

5. You mentioned conservation: what role did American hunters play in helping to establish national parks?

As we know them today? Everything.

If you like the national parks, thank a hunter—or rather go back in time and thank the Boone and Crockett Club. These guys understood very early on that parks would provide reservoirs for game that would assure good hunting beyond park boundaries, but, as time passed, they also came to see them as the last bastion for endangered animals. Remember, this was the generation that saw the bison driven almost to extinction: Owen Wister, urging Outing’s readers to support conservation, reminded them that “[You may] say that it is our grandchildren who will not find much trout fishing, but bear in mind that men not yet forty have seen the buffalo like armies along the banks.” The hunter elite were directly responsible for creating Glacier, Denali, Mesa Verde, Wind Crater, and what became Grand Canyon National Park, and barring hunting in Yellowstone. They also pushed through game-changing legislation, including the Antiquities Act, which gave presidents the ability to preserve these beautiful places without Congress’ consent (Obama was the most recent president to take advantage of that).

At the same time, conservation in this era had its darker side: saving wild places and animals often meant placing restrictions on local people as well as market hunters, and non-white and working-class hunters were the most likely to feel the impact. What interests me most is how the hunter elite used their power in the national media to disenfranchise local hunters by reaching out to middle-class readers, creating a constituency out of them, and then mobilizing them on behalf of conservation. It’s a different way of seeing the power they wielded than just examining political position and legislation, and it’s one of the parts of the story I’ve uncovered that’s most relevant to the current day: the role played by the media in deciding the outcome of conflicts over nature is really important to environmentalists and political scientists as well as historians.

6. What was the most challenging aspect of writing the book?

I’d probably have had a different answer at each stage of it, but one thing that strikes me is that I had the bad (or good) fortune to straddle the massive change in availability of these texts that we’re experiencing right now. When I wrote the first draft, everything I used was from libraries and archives, but by the time I was revising for the press almost all those texts—and some I hadn’t encountered before!– were available to me on my phone. There had to be a point where I took a deep breath, reminded myself that more is not always better, and stopped adding material. The availability is great for teaching (and for writers without travel funds), but I wonder sometimes how overwhelming it is for grad students just starting to explore a topic—archives are finite, so you can always reach the end of the file, pat yourself on the back, and go find a pub.

7. What was your favorite part of writing the book?

Engaging with the storytelling—although that also could fall under the “most challenging part,” since I wanted to make sure the anecdotes never overwhelmed the analysis. But these men and women were literate and engaging writers, and that was one of the reasons that their narratives resonated with readers. From sneering condemnations of “the great American trout-swine,” to “Songs of Pig-sticking” (complete with music and lyrics), to accounts of being attacked by grizzly bears (“I was greeted with a terrible growling and the crackling rush of a heavy body. I fired, and was embraced, it seems to me, almost simultaneously, calling to Clark as I went down…”), I never got tired of reading these sources. Their diaries are equally engaging: I love guide George Elson’s simple note on the day his expedition reached its goal, “Your joy no man taketh from you.”

I also kept an eye out for the aside that reveals more than the author intended. The safari, for instance, is often framed as being about subjugation, with white masters and black servants replicating the ugliest of race relations, but Winthrop Chanler (unintentionally) reveals that his workers had their own idea of that relationship when he insists on travelling across a lake on a creaky raft: his men lined the shores, he writes, and “shouted cheering words to us, such as, ‘Look out for the crocodiles!’ ‘If master dies, who’ll pay us.’ These cries, added to the dismal chill of the air, almost caused me to turn back…” Some elite whites might have liked to imagine they were acting out a story of mastery, but at least one worker on that safari knew it was all about his paycheck! I hope my analysis is always clear, but I love being able to share the words of these hunters and their guides with readers; they’re a large part of why this genre became so popular in its time.

8. What surprised you the most as you read these narratives?

I think the amount of evidence I’ve found about big-game hunting women. There’s been some great work written on women’s hunting, but it tends to focus on the handful of women who published narratives: there weren’t many, and they were mostly single, so that’s been our image of female hunters. Reading men’s stories, though, I discovered women hunting everywhere, most often with their husbands, but also with their fathers or brothers; these women didn’t usually publish, however, so they’ve been invisible so far. It upends a lot of what we thought. Charles Sheldon, for instance, took his society bride, Louisa Gulliver Sheldon, hunting, since he thought she would enjoy nothing as much as shooting a bear. It sounds like a hell of a honeymoon: at one point she was almost swept out to sea when they were crossing a river; she managed to keep her rifle above water, though, and displayed it proudly to Charles when he hauled her safely to shore. In addition, he notes, she turned out to be “perfectly cool, even more so than most men,” when dealing with bear. This is actually typical; most men hunting with their wives or daughters have nothing but praise for them.

Women’s published narratives are fascinating as well, because they conform to some elements of the men’s stories but openly challenge others—and even though far fewer women published than hunted, their books were hugely popular. They published in the recreational press as well (helpfully reminding other women, for instance, to discard their corsets before mountain-climbing).

9. If you could have any one person read your book, who would it be and why?

Living or dead? Charles Sheldon, the most respected American big-game hunter and the force behind Denali National Park: I’d love to know if he thought I got it right! He could share it with Louisa and maybe I could ask her why she never published her own version of her bear-hunting adventures.

10. What are you reading now?

In fiction, I’m almost through Nick Harkaway’s Gnomon, which is fantastic, like The Name of the Rose if it were sci-fi. In history, I just finished Mark Bowden’s Hué 1968. I’ve taught the Tet Offensive and also worked in Vietnam so I was fascinated to read a book that draws on sources from both sides of the conflict.

Tara Kathleen Kelly is an independent scholar with a PhD in American history from Johns Hopkins University.

International Women’s Day

It’s International Women’s Day, but at UPK it’s just another Thursday. A quick search for ‘women’ on our website turns up multiple pages of books about women. So, we picked a few of our favorites…

Wanted Women; An American Obsession in the Reign of J. Edgar Hoover

by Mary Elizabeth Strunk

The iconic photo of Bonnie Parker—cigar clenched in jaw, pistol in hand—says it all: America loves its bad girls. Now Mary Elizabeth Strunk tells us why.

Wanted Women is a startling look at the lives—and legends—of ten female outlaws who gained notoriety during the tumultuous decades that bracketed the tenure of FBI director J. Edgar Hoover. Strunk looks at real-life events and fictional portrayals to decipher what our obsession with these women says about shifting gender roles, evolving law-enforcement practices, and American cultural attitudes in general.

First Ladies and American Women In Politics and at Home

by Jill Abraham Hummer

Unelected, but expected to act as befits her “office,” the first lady has what Pat Nixon called “the hardest unpaid job in the world.” Michelle Obama championed military families with the program Joining Forces. Four decades earlier Pat Nixon traveled to Africa as the nation’s official representative. And nearly four decades before that, Lou Hoover took to the airwaves to solicit women’s help in unemployment relief. Each first lady has, in her way, been intimately linked with the roles, rights, and responsibilities of American women. Pursuing this connection, First Ladies and American Women reveals how each first lady from Lou Henry Hoover to Michelle Obama has reflected and responded to trends that marked and unified her time.

Beyond Rosie the Riveter; Women of World War II in American Popular Graphic Art

by Donna B. Knaff

The iconic bicep-flexing poster image of “Rosie the Riveter” has long conveyed the impression that women were welcomed into the World War II work force and admired for helping “free a man to fight.” Donna Knaff, however, shows that “Rosie” only revealed part of the reality and that women depicted in other World War II visual art—both in the private sector and the military—reflected decidedly mixed feelings about the status of women within American society.

The Woman Who Dared to Vote; The Trial of Susan B. Anthony

by N. E. H. Hull

Just as the polls opened on November 5, 1872, Susan B. Anthony arrived and filled out her “ticket” for the various candidates. But before it could be placed in the ballot box, a poll watcher objected, claiming her action violated the laws of New York and the state constitution. Anthony vehemently protested that as a citizen of the United States and the state of New York she was entitled to vote under the Fourteenth Amendment. The poll watchers gave in and allowed Anthony to deposit her ballots. Anthony was arrested, charged with a federal crime, and tried in court.

Those Girls; Single Women in Sixties and Seventies Popular Culture

by Katherine J. Lehman

Long before Carrie Bradshaw in Sex and the City, there was Mary Richards in The Mary Tyler Moore Show. Every week, as Mary flung her beret into the air while the theme song proclaimed, You’re gonna make it after all, it seemed that young, independent women like herself had finally arrived. But as Katherine Lehman reveals, the struggle to create accurate portrayals of successful single women for American TV and cinema during the 1960s and 1970s wasn’t as simple as the toss of a hat.

Daughters of Aquarius; Women of the Sixties Counterculture

by Gretchen Lemke-Santangelo

It was a sign of the sixties. Drawn by the promise of spiritual and creative freedom, thousands of women from white middle-class homes rejected the suburban domesticity of their mothers to adopt lifestyles more like those of their great-grandmothers. They eagerly learned “new” skills, from composting to quilting, as they took up the decade’s quest for self-realization.