sion to bring terrorism to Europe wasnmade in 1968. The date is significant.nIt was a year in wiiich it was easy to findnrecruits for terrorist gangs on the universityncampuses, among naive and disorientednmiddle- and upper-class youth.nIt was also the year in which the Sovietnempire faced one of its recurrent crises:nthe threatened defection of Czechoslovakia,nwhere even the party leadershipnhad been demoralized by the spectaclenof democracy-in-affluence in neighboringnWest Germany and Austria.nThe sole criterion for Soviet sponsorshipnof terrorists is technical competence.nIdeology is irrelevant, becausenthe purpose of Soviet-backed terrorismnis not to Sovietize the target countriesnbut simply to destabilize them. The aimnis to plunge these countries into politicalnconfusion—leading to chaos, capitalnflight, economic decline and possiblynmilitary dictatorship—so that theirnprosperity and democracy will no longerntempt the subjects of the Soviet empire.nFor that, terrorists of any ideologicalncomplexion will do.nIn order to persuade the Soviet Unionnto abandon its sponsorship of internationalnterrorism, the Western democraciesnwould have to agree on—andnimplement—a systematic, coordinatednpolicy of political and economic sanctions.nThe first step toward such a policynis to recognize the problem. ClairenSterling’s book, and the commotion itnhas caused, will surely help our policymakersnto do that. DnTales of Virtue and ExcellencenCarol Felsenthal: The Sweetheart ofnthe Silent Majority: The Biographynof Phyllis Schlafly; Doubleday &nCo.; New York.nby Becki KlutenWho is Phvllis Schlaflv, this impeccablenlady who touts the virtues ofntraditional womanhood even as she performsnquite untraditional feats.” This isnthe question Ms. Felsenthal attempts tonanswer. The facts have long been knownn—Sacred Heart Academy, WashingtonnUniversity, husband Fred, six kids—nbut they dont really tell us much. Ms.nFelsenthal has done a creditable job innher efforts to find the “real” PhyllisnSchlafly. But Ms. Felsenthal was unablento “climb behind her eyes” and discovernthe elemental person beneath thenpersonality, the human being who livesninside the well-known woman. FornPhyllis Schlafly is a very private person.nShe has been burned more than oncenby the media, so her reluctance to revealnMrs. Klute is on the editorial staff ofnthe Chronicles.n^OinChronicles of Culturenher inner self is, perhaps, understandable.nShe resents public speculation onnwhether she has a housekeeper: she isnhurt when ERA supporters concoct talesnof child neglect in her house. She hasnlearned that such things are inevitable,nbut one gets the feeling that she’d benmuch happier if reporters would concentratenless on her life and more onnher ideas. That separation is impossible,nthough, for Phyllis Schlafly’s ideas arenultimately the product of Phyllis StewartnSchlafly’s life.nAlthough her daughter was born notnwith a silver spoon but to a family withnonly the memory of it, Odile Stewartnset about to instill in Phyllis all the best,nthe most solid, attributes of the elite.nAnd she had a willing pupil. A fortunatencombination of genes gave Phyllis bothnthe desire and the ability to fulfill hernmother’s every dream—much of whichnbecame her own. She teamed her prodigiousnintellectual talents with a phenomenalnsense of self-discipline to succeednat literally everything she tried.nPhyllis Schlafly reminds me a littlen— in accomplishment, not ideology—ofnEleanor Roosevelt, or even of Rose Ken­nnnnedy. Like them, she is at the same timenvery powerful and very feminine. Likenthese political wives of a previous generation,nshe considers herself first andnforemost a wife and mother. Like them,nshe cares for a large family and looks tonher husband as the head of the household.nJust as Mrs. Roosevelt influencednthe women of a nation and Mrs. Kennedyngroomed her young statesmen fornthe Presidency, Phyllis Schlafly hasnleft her own indelible mark on our time.nIs there, then, a connection, or compatibility,nbetween femininity and powernwhich the vehement ERA proponentsnhave not suspected? Throughout historynthere have been women whonchanged the course of nations—fromnCleopatra to Joan of Arc to MargaretnThatcher. Women have left their imprintnon societies aroimd the world,nin every walk of life, from the criminaln(Bonnie Parker) to the spiritual (MothernTeresa) and virtually everything in between.nIs it possible, then that therenhave never been any walls aroundnwomen.’ Perhaps what faces the ambitiousnwoman is not so much a wall as anprickly hedge—difficult, but certainlynnot impossible, to penetrate.nSo what are the unique qualities thatnthese unusual women—including PhyllisnSchlafly—share.” Education is a factor,nwhether it is of the “homespunnphilosopher”‘ variety or the “school ofnhard knocks” or formal instruction atnan exclusive college. Ingeniousnessnhelps, too: the successful person is adeptnat circumventing life’s roadblocks.nA major key would seem to be selfdiscipline—anquality Phyllis Schlaflynseems to have been born with, or absorbednalong with mother’s milk andnpabulum. Unless her former classmatesnand teachers, her friends and relations,nhave wonderfully kind memories, therenis scarcely a single instance of PhyllisnStewart losing her temper, sassing anteacher or slapping her sister. Intenselyncompetitive, she seems to have preferrednto display her superiority in the academicnarena.nOne rare and outstanding qualityn