Lawrence Auster is a leading far-right conservative author, one of the primary forces behind efforts to severely limit immigration and the "suicidal course of Western Civilization". He has published extensively at FrontPage Magazine, American Thinker, NewsMax, and National Review. His website is called "View From the Right", subtitled "The passing scene and what it's about viewed from the traditionalist politically incorrect Right."
OK, fine. So he's a wingnut conservative with a strong religious belief, who is fixated on Islam, and pretty much defines nativism (his 1990 book The Path to National Suicide: An Essay on Immmigration and Multiculturalism is considered by the 'mainstream right' as one of their seminal anti-immigration texts ). So what?
So, last month he came out with the following:
In accordance with the mission statement of this website which is to discuss the modern world as "viewed from the traditionalist politically incorrect right," let me put the matter plainly: Is it a sign of strength in the West that women can vote, hold political office, and be shapers of public opinion on political issues including matters of national security? Or is it a sign--and a cause--of a profound, perhaps fatal weakness?
Yeah, you read that correctly: he wonders whether women should have any political rights. And while he claims that he is still developing his opinions on this, the post (and his comments in the discussion thread), make it pretty clear that he thinks that the 19th Amendment was a Bad Idea:
There is much to be said for the view that affording women political rights (as distinct from the protection of their human rights, property rights, and civil rights) inevitably leads society in the direction of the Nanny State that we see in full bloom in today's Britain and Europe, leading ultimately to the end of national sovereignty and the onset of global governance. Women's primary external concern is safety and security. That is how it should be. Women are the natural care-givers and are naturally focused on the home and the family and its protection. But those same priorities, when expressed through the political sphere as distinct from the private sphere, inevitably lead a society in the direction of socialism. Once women have the vote, there is, over time, a growing tendency for women to stop seeing their fathers and husbands as the primary providers of security, and to see the state in that role instead. This tendency encourages--and in turn is greatly exacerbated by--the increase in unmarried motherhood. Single women, both with children and not, overwhelmingly see the state as their principal provider and accordingly vote overwhelmingly for the left. If women's vote leads a society in the direction of socialist statism, the weakening of marriage and the family, the loss of male responsibility, the loss of basic freedoms (which only men are physically and temperamentally suited to defend), and the loss of national vigor, does that not suggest that giving women the vote was a mistake?
Then there is the direct effect on society of having women in high leadership positions. I believe that with rare exceptions such as a Margaret Thatcher or a Golda Meir, women are not well suited for upholding the basic external structure of society. That is preeminently a male, not a female task. To me, the female-dominated politics of the Scandinavian countries do not represent a positive and uplifting direction for the human race. The huge number of women in the British Parliament do not represent a growth of British national strength but its decline.
There's more. And since comments are all moderated by Mr. Auster, one can assume that those comments he posts supporting his position are ones he accepts to at least some degree. His interaction with the comments also makes it very clear that he thinks that allowing woman the franchise was the source of all that is bad in America (i.e., liberalism), since it paved the way for further equality and the 'feminization' of men and politics. One last quote, from those comments:
Modern liberal society reduces society to a single paradigm, i.e., diversity and equality, to which all institutions must rigidly conform. By contrast, a traditionalist society allows for a genuine diversity of institutions and settings. Thus we could imagine a traditionalist society in which some settings would be all-male, some all female, and others having both men and women, all depending on what is appropriate to the nature and function of that institution.
Women were not excluded from participation in political discussion prior to the 19th amendment which gave women the vote; obviously, since it was women's activism that led to the 19th amendment. But now, assuming for the sake of discussion that we agree that it is better for society that women not have political rights (which is not yet a position I am fully committed to, though I am lean in that direction), if such a re-traditionalized society were to maintain itself, everyone, men and women, would need to understand the importance of the differentiation of women's and men's roles in society.
I have never seen a clearer example of the American Taliban put forth. Lest you think that such stuff should just be ignored, note when Auster's book was published - 1990 - and how it has grown into 'mainstream' political thought on the Right, culminating in the defeat of Bush's immigration reform efforts.
(Cross posted to Unscrewing the Inscrutable.)