A case can be made that non-ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is a classic example of “snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.” After all, the ERA had received overwhelming support in both houses of Congress, passing by a vote of 354 to 23 in the House and 84 to 8 in the Senate. Both major political parties had repeatedly supported the ERA in their national party platforms; not until 1980 did one party (the Republican) adopt a stance of neutrality. Every President from Truman to Carter had endorsed the amendment. And, by the end of the campaign for state ratification, more than 450 organizations with a total membership of over 50 million were on record in support of the ERA. While the amendment was before Congress in 1970-72, lobbying for the ERA was heavy and well-organized, and no countervailing forces were ever mobilized in any effective way. In view of this broad base of political and public support for the amendment, and little visible opposition, a reasonable prognosis in 1972 was that it would be ratified by the required 38 states long before the original deadline of March 22, 1979, set by Congress.

However, the ratification process was far more complex than either political observers or amendment supporters recognized initially. Although an intensive lobbying effort had been waged to push the amendment through Congress, supporters naively believed that it would be quickly ratified in the absence of pre-existing state groups poised to press for passage and without major allocation of national organizations' resources.

In 1972 it appeared that the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) would be ratified quickly. Support was forthcoming from a vast array of political leaders, such as President Nixon, past presidents, governors and legislators. Both major parties made the amendment part of their platforms and did so again in 1976. An impressive list of private organizations, including the National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs, the League of Women Voters, the American Association of University Women and many labor organizations, supported the amendment. Opposition was confined to groups of limited political effectiveness, such as the John Birch Society, George Wallace's American Independent Party and the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR).

During the years immediately following congressional approval of the ERA in 1972, the American public strongly favored the amendment (see Table 1). In 1974, three Americans favored the ERA for every one who opposed it. Support for the ERA continued at a ratio of about two to one throughout the early ratification years. Support was widespread among all demographic groups. In 1975-76, the Gallup Poll found that even within groups where opposition to the ERA was strongest a majority supported ratification. Specifically, persons with low incomes favored it 53 percent to 31 percent and those living in small towns supported it 54 percent to 29 percent.

Only in 1980—eight years after the ERA was submitted to the states for ratification—did support dip down to its lowest level. This represented a second phase for the ERA—the 1980 presidential campaign-during which the amendment was transformed by candidate Ronald Reagan into a partisan issue and removed from the Republican platform.

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is not the first failed attempt to amend the U.S. Constitution to make the political power of women more equal to that of men. Nor was the first failure connected with the so-called Women's Suffrage Amendment which was ratified in 1920. Rather, it occurred 50 years and four successful amendments earlier. Despite the determined efforts of a small group of women, the Fifteenth Amendment guaranteed the right of all male citizens to vote regardless of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude” but left out women altogether.

It would be foolhardy to draw neat parallels between the experiences of activist women at two times as different as 1870 and the present. Nonetheless, it can be an instructive exercise.

Americans have always been suspicious of elites, and criticism leveled at the leadership of the ERA reflects that attitude. It would be unlikely, however, for a mass movement to be the propelling force behind a constitutional amendment. Looking back at the struggle over the Fifteenth Amendment, we see that a small band of educated, upper-middle-class women fought for the inclusion of women. That those women were perceived as an elite does seem to have hurt their cause. Similarly, the ERA's chances may have been damaged by a perception that its chief proponents were not typical American women.

Yet, the political culture of the time is clearly of greatest importance in determining an amendment's passage. In 1870 the barriers to acceptance of women as leaders were so great that even communicating their views was no easy task for the early suffragettes. The culture was resistant to women “speaking out.”

Though the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) fell three states short of ratification, the women's movement seems to have learned from its mistakes and made some changes in its tactics, organization and focus. Specifically, feminist organizations—now stronger than ever—are stressing grass roots political activities and issues which are economic as well as social.

Feminist groups seem to have been most successful in influencing public policy when they have focused on role equity issues rather than role change issues. As Joyce Gelb and I explained in a recent book on women and public policy,

Role equity issues are those policies which extend rights now enjoyed by other groups (men, other minorities) to women and which appear to be relatively delineated or narrow in their implications, permitting policy makers to seek advantage with feminist groups and voters with little cost or controversy. In contrast, role change issues appear to produce change in the dependent female role of wife, mother and homemaker, holding out the potential of greater sexual freedom and independence in a variety of contexts. The latter issues are fraught with greater political pitfalls, including perceived threats to existing values, in turn creating visible and often powerful opposition.

Of course, many issues deal both with role equity and role change. When feminist groups have failed, it has often been because their opponents have emphasized the role change aspects of an issue.

Many of the issues which are primarily questions of role equity are economic. Thus, it was probably wise for the National Organization for Women (NOW) to emphasize in its ERA effort that the average female worker earns 59 cents for every dollar earned by her male counterpart.