Cassandra at Villainous Company is writing again about (sort of) the unprincipled Kevin Williamson National Review Online post regarding women’s suffrage. I started to comment over there and realized I was writing way too much for a comment so here’s a post.
First - and a point I also made in the comments at Grim’s - let’s stop pretending that Williamson has linked to a “joke” video about how girls or people or whatever are dumb enough to sign petitions they don’t understand or will sign anything they think is protest-y. The video Williamson linked to is entitled “End Women’s Suffrage” and the final frame reads, “We rest our case.” The video is explicitly advocating ending women’s suffrage. It requires the cephalic flexibility of Regan MacNeil to spin this video any other way.
Second, John Derbyshire. Cassandra is inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt because of an NRO video is which he asserts that he believes equity outweighs pragmatism and therefore is not advocating for the repeal of female suffrage. Sounds good but this is a walk-back of Obamaian proportions. Leave aside that Derbyshire could have entitled his book sub-chapter, “Why Female Suffrage Is Bad For Conservatives” rather than “The Case Against Female Suffrage.” Where he really shot himself in the foot was in an interview with Alan Colmes the week before the damage-repair NRO video was made.
You can listen to the Colmes interview here. (The transcript in the post is correct but incomplete. There’s a full rough transcript at the bottom of my post.) Here’s the foot-shot from Derbyshire:
Among the hopes that I do not realistically nurse is the hope that female suffrage will be repealed. But I’ll say this – if it were to be, I wouldn’t lose a minute’s sleep.
The rest of it - that we’d probably be a better country if women didn’t vote because women “lean hard to the left” - can be explained away (not adequately to my mind but your mileage may vary) as Derbyshire merely pointing out - as he says in the NRO video - the “downside” to women voting. But the statement that he “wouldn’t lose a minute’s sleep” if female suffrage were repealed is plainly and simply a statement that the “equity” he is careful to laud in that video is simply damage control. Or perhaps a statement that he is utterly unruffled by equity being thrown under the bus of pragmatism.
A later exchange is equally enlightening:
COLMES: What’s next? You want to bring back slavery?
DERBYSHIRE: No, no. I’m in favor of freedom personally.
COLMES: Okay, but women shouldn’t have the freedom to vote.
DERBYSHIRE: Well, they didn’t [for 130 years] and we got along ok.
Again, equity has nothing to do with it. The question is whether women not voting caused any problems. In Derbyshire’s view it didn’t, so there’s no point in worrying about it. Again pragmatism trumps equity hands down.
The logic here also escapes me. We could as easily argue that we got along okay with slavery - except for those pesky abolitionists - as we can that we got along okay without women’s suffrage - except for those pesky suffragettes. And I have to say, this is very discouraging. I’ve always believed - even when I leaned left myself - that those on the Left had trouble with logic while those on the Right did not. If Derbyshire is what passes for “the Right” these days, I’m going to have to give up on both sides in this regard. Here’s another example of Derbyshire’s very trying lack of logic:
COLMES: Well, you could say we got along okay with lots ... We didn’t have the Civil Rights Act and we got along okay. Should we repeal the Civil Rights Act?
DERBYSHIRE: The 1964 Civil Rights Act?
COLMES: Yeah, right.
DERBYSHIRE: There’s a case for repealing it, yeah.
COLMES: Why would you repeal that?
DERBYSHIRE: Because I think that you shouldn’t try to force people to be good. Try to reason with them and argue them into being good, not pass laws to make them good.
Leaving aside what one thinks about the 1964 Civil Rights Act*, we see that Derbyshire is fine with legislation to force women not to vote but flinches at the idea of legislation to force people to stop discriminating against Blacks. Perhaps he does not consider forcing women not to vote as an example of forcing people to be good. Or perhaps he doesn’t think women are susceptible to being reasoned with.
Which brings me to an excellent point of Cassandra’s:
I can't argue with anything Derbyshire has to say in the linked video, but it does make me wonder why a party that advocates both freedom of expression and unfettered markets hasn't bothered to ask itself how it came to lose women's' votes? It has become axiomatic on the right to blame feminism for everything from the heartbreak of psoriasis to the bedbug infestation in NY city, but if conservatism isn't selling well in the marketplace of ideas then perhaps conservatives need to take a long, hard look in the mirror rather than blaming the customer for not buying their product.
It's easy (though more than a bit reminiscent of lefty condescension) to opine loftily that women who vote progressive are voting against self interest. Such tactics relieve the arguer of the tiresome necessity of convincing women why this might be so, the self evidently self evident truth of the conservative Weltanschauung being downright impossible to refudiate.
On the other hand, making clear, principled, cohesive arguments that convince women that conservatism better represents their interests (not to mention those of society at large) sounds suspiciously like hard work. If feminism is such intellectual weak tea, one can't help wondering why we're having so much trouble demonstrating its flaws?
I suspect Derbyshire would argue that those on the Right can’t convince women that conservatism better represents their interests because women aren’t susceptible to reason: they’re all about wanting “someone to help them raise their kids”. Or as I like to call it: The She Trapped Me Into Marriage By Getting Pregnant Explanation of Voting Patterns. Myself, I tend to think that Derbyshire himself can’t convince women that conservatism better represents their interests because they suspect he doesn’t give a damn about their interests; we know for a fact that he doesn’t give a damn about their interest in voting.
Third - and finally, I hope - I imagine there are conservatives out there asking, “What is wrong with her? Why can’t she take a joke? Surely she must know know that no one is seriously suggesting repealing the Nineteenth Amendment!” And yet it’s NRO, home of Kevin Williamson, that keeps screaming, “Sharia is coming! Sharia is coming!” I’m afraid I don’t have much faith that my Lefty brethren won’t throw my right to vote to the, er, dogs of political correctness in order to pacify fundamental Islam. After all, I saw how the Boyz of Left Blogistan trashed Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. I’m not entirely sure my Lefty sistren wouldn’t do the same. Promise Naomi Wolf and Eve Ensler that repealing the Nineteenth Amendment means Sarah Palin can’t vote** and dollars will get you doughnuts they’ll be leading the charge. I already know at least one*** of my conservative sistren would throw my voting rights overboard with no more loss of sleep than Derbyshire.
Given all that perhaps those who think I’m humorless**** on this topic can better understand my feeling a little insecure about my right to vote. It’s not that I believe anyone is seriously advocating repealing the Nineteenth Amendment; it’s that I fear there are a substantial number of people (or at least pundits) who don’t consider women’s suffrage as inalienable a right as men’s suffrage. Given the rustling in the underbrush, I don’t find the lack of principle on this matter particularly humorous.
*****
* Based on nothing but get feeling, I think it was a good idea when the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed but the Act itself and/or its offshoots may have outlived their usefulness. Someday I may write a post on what I think we should do with affirmative action.
** Based on Article Two, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution, I think Sarah Palin would be eligible to be elected President even if she herself could not vote. That might dampen Wolf and Ensler’s enthusiasm for repealing the Nineteenth Amendment.
*** Ann Coulter may or may not have advocated repeal of the Nineteenth Amendment. This 2000 article by her is called “Reconsidering the 19th Amendment” but I don’t read it as a call to repeal women’s right to vote. This 2007 article says she did in an interview but the link to the “complete interview” doesn’t support that claim.
**** There is a classic Ms. magazine cover on which a man is saying, “Did you know the Women’s Movement has no sense of humor?” To which a woman replies, “No, but hum a few bars and I’ll fake it.”
*****
Notes:
I hate to intrude reality into Derbyshire’s view of voting patterns but in 2008, men went for Obama 49% to 48%. In 1992, men went for Clinton 41% to 38%. In 1976, men went for Carter 50% to 48%. Disenfranchising women would not have prevented any of those Democratic Presidencies.
Furthermore, women favored Nixon in 1972 (61% to 37%); favored Regan in 1980 (47% to 45%) and 1984 (56% to 44%); and favored George H. W. Bush in 1988 (50% to 49%).
Women went Democrat while men went Republican in 1996 (Clinton won); 2000 and 2004 (Bush won). So the only time since 1972 that disenfranchising women would have changed the outcome of a Presidential election is Clinton’s 1996 victory.
*****
Transcript of the Colmes/Derbyshire interview:
COLMES: What is the case against female suffrage?
DERBYSHIRE: Well, the conservative case against it is that women lean hard to the left. They want someone to nurture, they want someone to help them raise their kids, and if men aren’t inclined to do it — which in the present days, they’re not much — then they’d like the state to do it for them.
COLMES: Well, then, do you think women should not vote?
DERBYSHIRE: Ah… I’m not putting forward a political program here. I’m trying to change attitudes, Alan, you know.
COLMES: Well, you say “The Case Against Female Suffrage” the suggestion is that them voting would not be the best thing for you.
DERBYSHIRE: Among the hopes that I do not realistically nurse is the hope that female suffrage will be repealed. But I’ll say this – if it were to be, I wouldn’t lose a minute’s sleep.
COLMES: We’d be a better country if women didn’t vote?
DERBYSHIRE: Probably. Don’t you think so?
COLMES: No, I do not think so whatsoever.
DERBYSHIRE: Come on Alan. Come clean here [laughing].
COLMES: We would be a better country? John Derbyshire making the statement, we would be a better country if women did not vote.
DERBYSHIRE: Yeah, probably. We got along like that for what, 130 years.
COLMES: What’s next? You want to bring back slavery?
DERBYSHIRE: No, no. I’m in favor of freedom personally.
COLMES: Okay, but women shouldn’t have the freedom to vote.
DERBYSHIRE: Well, they didn’t and we got along ok.
COLMES: Well, you could say we got along okay with lots ... We didn’t have the Civil Rights Act and we got along okay. Should we repeal the Civil Rights Act?
DERBYSHIRE: The 1964 Civil Rights Act?
COLMES: Yeah, right.
DERBYSHIRE: There’s a case for repealing it, yeah.
COLMES: Why would you repeal that?
DERBYSHIRE: Because I think that you shouldn’t try to force people to be good. Try to reason with them and argue them into being good, not pass laws to make them good.
COLMES: Should we repeal the Voting Rights Act?
DERBYSHIRE: Again, you know, a lot of these things that we think of and we’re told these goods came to us through government action. If you look closely, they were happening anyway. Attitudes were changing ...
COLMES: We had segregated buses, we had segregation, we didn’t have equal rights, equal schools before Brown v. Board of Education. Separate but equal didn’t work.
DERBYSHIRE: But the question is, was government action, was judicial action necessary to change that or was ...
COLMES: Well, apparently so, otherwise it might not have changed.
DERBYSHIRE: How do you know it would not have changed?
COLMES: Was it changing? Did it change ...
DERBYSHIRE: If you look at the trend lines, it was already changing.
COLMES: In other words, we didn’t need the Civil Rights Act, we didn’t need the Voting Rights Act, we didn’t need a decision Brown v. Board of Education to say separate cannot be equal. Everything would have been just fine had we not done any of this stuff.
DERBYSHIRE: We don’t know that it wouldn’t have been.
COLMES: But you don’t know that it would have been. But we do know that is was because these things did change, they were legislated, and it did have positive results, and that’s verifiable.
DERBYSHIRE: But liberals always leap to government action and then claim the government action did it. We don’t know that government action did ...
COLMES: We know that government action did it because there’s a line of demarcation since 1964 where thing things, having coming to, having come to pass, became law and changed America for the better.
DERBYSHIRE: There’s a test you can apply in all kinds of sociological situations called the trend line test where you plot a graph of any kind of social phenomenon, you know, road accidents or anything like that. You plot a graph of it across time and then you stare at the graph and you try to find the point where legislation kicked in and you know what? Much more often than not, you can’t.
Posts
6 comments:
I don't know what to say about this, Elise, except to say how utterly sorry I am that I wrote about this.
The NRO video is something I ran across while doing research before responding to Grim. My intuitive sense was that he was equivocating, but since I have several times criticized others for not taking arguments in good faith I felt honor bound to extend the benefit of the doubt to
Derbyshire. I never read the Colmes interview, but like you I'm pretty disgusted with the suggestion that disenfranchising half of American citizens wouldn't cause him to lose "a minute's sleep".
I don't like a lot of things men support but I would NEVER countenance depriving them of the right to vote.
I agree with you - he's making an unprincipled argument. You nailed it here:
the statement that he “wouldn’t lose a minute’s sleep” if female suffrage were repealed is plainly and simply a statement that the “equity” he is careful to laud in that video is simply damage control. Or perhaps a statement that he is utterly unruffled by equity being thrown under the bus of pragmatism.
The real irony is that as a woman I'm supposed to trust that the supposed rationality and integrity of people like that is sufficient to safeguard my rights?
Bullshit.
Denying the franchise to women- or any other monolithically-imagined group, like "blacks" or "welfare moms"- is based on assuming that there is only one kind of woman in the world and that all these identical women live identical lives and vote identically.
In other words, it means that women-or any other named group- are just subhuman enough to be incapable of individuality.
I find the argument that we are growing a Nanny-state only because women and users of public services like welfare can vote really odd. Haven't multiple studies shown that people living on the public dole are often the least likely to vote? (I can't cite a specific study and my memory here might be faulty.)
The ugly elephant in the room here is that there are a lot of people who only want people like themselves to vote. It's that simple.
(My take on this here.)
I'm reminded of an old sci-fi tale:
A mysterious man shows up at the house of a struggling couple with a box. Inside the box is a button. The man says: If you push the button, I'll give you a million dollars- but somebody will die."
The couple initially says no, and the man reassures them: Don't worry, it won't be anyone you know.
So they push the button. He gives them their money and takes the box back. They ask what happens now.
He says: I give the button to somebody else and ask them to push it. Don't worry; it won't be anyone you know!"
Bullshit? I agree 100%, Cassandra. And don't be sorry you wrote about it. Some things needs to be dragged out from under their rocks into the light of day and you're a great dragger. (Which may not come out as the compliment I mean it to be.)
Lynne, the post you linked to is great. And the one that post links to is even better. Thanks for passing those along.
My argument has little or nothing to do with the specific value of extending the franchise to women or declining to do so. (I have not much thought about that question.) I am still less concerned about proposals that would result in the election of more Republicans to public office (because I am not sure that would produce the results that I desire).
My argument is that voting is in general a crude way to address complex problems and that we grossly overestimate the value of voting. Treacly tributes to the 19th Amendment require an antidote, and I offered one.
Given a choice, I would undo the extension of the franchise to people under 21 (in fact, I'd raise the voting age to 25) and rescind direct election of senators. I do not have any strong feelings about women's voting per se.
Best,
Kevin Williamson
I owe you an apology, Mr. Williamson. Two actually. You will find them here.
Post a Comment