Doug Wilson and his schtick

[Ken]

You're also assuming that Republicans win by popular majority vote, which often isn't true in Federal elections.

Right, and all such a candidate would need to do would be win the primary, then in the general election convince enough people that he was the best choice because the other party is so dangerously extreme and maybe he didn't really mean those things he said while campaigning in the primary. Create enough fear and voters will vote against their self interests.

I agree that it's unlikely, but not as unlikely as it seems at first glance.

Constitutional Amendments require 2/3 vote from each House of Congress as well as ratification by 3/4ths of the state legislatures (38 out of 50 states).

No one candidate, politician, or party has remotely enough power to do that on their own. It pretty much requires national consensus. I don't think there has ever been a time in American history when one party controlled 2/3ds of the seats of both houses of Congress let along 3/4 of the states. Maybe during the Civil War when the south had seceded and wasn't present in Congress. But that is about it.

[JohnL]

Red Alert! Federal Politics have threatened this thread! Shields up.

[barnhart]

Fair point JohnL, it may not be possible to discuss Doug Wilson outside politics.

[Thomas_muntzer]

Should we start with his attitude towards women? If one of our men said half the things he did, they would be taken aside and given a bit of wise counsel. That would be BEFORE the ministry got involved.

Yes even when i consider voting an useless mechanism to make changes repeal the 19th ammendment is not a good idea

Do you consider voting itself to be useless? Or do you just choose not to do it yourself?

I mean, what is the alternative? Coronation of inherited monarchs who rule by some notion of divine right? A single party choosing leaders through the central committee of the party politburo? Political change via military coups?

In any event I doubt repeal of the 19th Amendment will be a winning political issue for Republicans. There are more women voters than male voters in this country. And women turn out at higher rates than men.

Yes, I consider voting in a national election to be completely useless. It may have some impact on a homeowners association or local council, but at the federal level, presidents are elected by the great powers behind the scenes, giving the citizens the illusion that they elect them.

Regarding the 19th Amendment, there were many women in the 19th and 20th centuries who actively opposed women's suffrage

[Thomas_muntzer]

I'm not assuming all women vote in lock step with any party or issue.

But I do doubt there is a plurality of women VOTERS who are willing to vote in favor of losing their right to vote. There isn't a plurality of male voters in favor of that either. It is an incredibly fringe issue down there with people who want to reinstate slavery or segregation or otherwise revert back to the 19th Century.

The fact that Doug Wilson or Pete Hegseth might be talking about it says more about them and their judgement than it does about the salience of the issue itself.

I agree with you on this, repeal the 19th is an extremely unpopular campaign topic that I doubt will leave the corners of Twitter or internet forums

[Judas Maccabeus]

Should we start with his attitude towards women? If one of our men said half the things he did, they would be taken aside and given a bit of wise counsel. That would be BEFORE the ministry got involved.

Yes even when i consider voting an useless mechanism to make changes repeal the 19th ammendment is not a good idea

Do you consider voting itself to be useless? Or do you just choose not to do it yourself?

I mean, what is the alternative? Coronation of inherited monarchs who rule by some notion of divine right? A single party choosing leaders through the central committee of the party politburo? Political change via military coups?

In any event I doubt repeal of the 19th Amendment will be a winning political issue for Republicans. There are more women voters than male voters in this country. And women turn out at higher rates than men.

I don't vote out of both personal conviction, and the fact that the Mennonite conference, I am part of strongly discourages voting.

The only way that the voting system would be changed so significantly that women could not vote would be if there were a complete overthrow of the current constitutional order. I hope I never live to see this happen. You do realize that up until the mid-70s, a married woman could not get a credit card in her own name, and until the mid-60s, typically needed a cosigner for virtually any kind of loan. In some places, a single woman could not rent an apartment even for fear it would turn into a morality issue. This has changed in my short lifetime.

[barnhart]

There were real world, painful effects to keeping women marginalized economically. Research the estimated percentage of single adult women who took money for sex in the US 100 years ago. It's appalling to think about.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

I'm not assuming all women vote in lock step with any party or issue.

But I do doubt there is a plurality of women VOTERS who are willing to vote in favor of losing their right to vote. There isn't a plurality of male voters in favor of that either. It is an incredibly fringe issue down there with people who want to reinstate slavery or segregation or otherwise revert back to the 19th Century.

The fact that Doug Wilson or Pete Hegseth might be talking about it says more about them and their judgement than it does about the salience of the issue itself.

You're also working off the assumption that this issue would be decided by referendum. We have a representative democracy in America, which means no one "votes" for this. At best, we vote for people who we HOPE would work in our favor on this (or other) issues.

Wilson and Hegseth are promoting this as the strongest "pro-family" measure out there. They contend that "the family" (or "the household" as Wilson puts it) is the basic social unit of a nation, and therefore, "families" must have a voice; they also contend that giving a voice (or a vote) to individuals steals the voice of the family. That's how they sell it. If a politician runs on a promise to "restore the voice and influence of the American family", I can guarantee a LOT of men and women would vote for that person; and when that person attempts to follow through on their promise by repealing the 19th (which I still find unlikely), it'll be too late.
That's how this ACTUALLY works. We vote for a person who makes promises, and then we leave it up to them to follow through on those promises by whatever means they can do it. We don't get a referendum vote on repealing the 19th Amendment, or whatever.

And while we're talking about "repealing the 19th", I feel like that is how the article frames it (or just implies it). Wilson makes reference to women voting if and when they are the head of a "household". The example is if there is a widow, who now is the head of her household in her husband's absence. In their vision, she would represent her household with a vote.
Applying this vision to America, it's a lot more complicated than "repealing the 19th". You'd have to reframe the entirety of how America sees voting and sees the right of holding a vote. That right is given to certain (but not all) individuals in America. You'd have to reframe the idea of "the right to vote" as being given to households instead of individuals.
Then you'd have to sort through the whole definition of a "household".
Is a multi-generational family living under one roof (VERY common in immigrant communities from Latin America, the Middle East, and Asia) to be considered one household? Is a single adult person, man or woman, considered a "household"? Is a married homosexual couple considered a "household"? What if they've adopted children? What about a Hutterite Colony, or a hippie commune? How many "households" do they have, or, if it's going off of property like the multigenerational immigrant household, is an entire Hutterite colony "one household"? When an old man moves into a Doddy House, is he still a "household", or does he lose his vote by being a part of his son/daughter's "household"?
How are questions like this handled at Christ Kirk? My guess is that the framework of giving "households" a voice and a vote instead of individuals forces them to adopt a very narrow view of what properly constitutes a "household".

This whole framework is borrowed from the pagan Roman Empire's view of a well-ordered nation, and let's face it, that's what they are trying to recreate. They aren't fans of following Jesus; they are fans of rebuilding "the West", by which is meant a much broader tradition than Christianity (in fact, much of this philosophy predates Christianity), even if their word for it is "Christendom".

[Wesleyb]

I'm not assuming all women vote in lock step with any party or issue.

But I do doubt there is a plurality of women VOTERS who are willing to vote in favor of losing their right to vote. There isn't a plurality of male voters in favor of that either. It is an incredibly fringe issue down there with people who want to reinstate slavery or segregation or otherwise revert back to the 19th Century.

The fact that Doug Wilson or Pete Hegseth might be talking about it says more about them and their judgement than it does about the salience of the issue itself.

You're also working off the assumption that this issue would be decided by referendum. We have a representative democracy in America, which means no one "votes" for this. At best, we vote for people who we HOPE would work in our favor on this (or other) issues.
. . .

That was what I was trying to get at with my earlier post. If there had been a referendum on putting the military on streets of mostly peaceful cities and using masked agents to snatch immigrants doing their best to follow the law it would have failed, yet here we are. People voted for this out of fear of the alternative and maybe because they convinced themselves that "he doesn't mean what he says." Repealing women's suffrage still seems unlikely, but not nearly as far-fetched as it would have been 10 years ago.

[Ken]

I'm not assuming all women vote in lock step with any party or issue.

But I do doubt there is a plurality of women VOTERS who are willing to vote in favor of losing their right to vote. There isn't a plurality of male voters in favor of that either. It is an incredibly fringe issue down there with people who want to reinstate slavery or segregation or otherwise revert back to the 19th Century.

The fact that Doug Wilson or Pete Hegseth might be talking about it says more about them and their judgement than it does about the salience of the issue itself.

You're also working off the assumption that this issue would be decided by referendum. We have a representative democracy in America, which means no one "votes" for this. At best, we vote for people who we HOPE would work in our favor on this (or other) issues.
. . .

That was what I was trying to get at with my earlier post. If there had been a referendum on putting the military on streets of mostly peaceful cities and using masked agents to snatch immigrants doing their best to follow the law it would have failed, yet here we are. People voted for this out of fear of the alternative and maybe because they convinced themselves that "he doesn't mean what he says." Repealing women's suffrage still seems unlikely, but not nearly as far-fetched as it would have been 10 years ago.

Yes it is far-fetched. The presidency has enormous power in this country but amending the Constitution is not one of them. In no country in history has women's suffrage ever been reversed regardless of any conservative or revanchist revolution taking power. Not in Iran, not in Saudi Arabia. Nowhere. In fact, there are only two places on earth where women are prohibited from voting: Eritrea and Vatican City. And in Vatican City no one votes but Cardinals.

Just because right-wing nut jobs like Doug Wilson have fevered dreams of a new male patriarchy doesn't mean it is going to happen.

In any event, we would likely be far better off if men lost the franchise, not women. We would see far fewer wars to start with. And the world would probably be a much better place.