Brides of the State

The Party will save you from your husband.

Added editorial comment:

This post has generated more blow-back than any other, including a “what happened to Crawford?” post by Damon Linker (paywalled). If I were to re-write it, I would emphasize more strongly that the creepy thing here is the secrecy. Of course spouses often disagree about politics! I spent 25 years in such a marriage, but it was something we talked about. The point of a secret ballot is to prevent political persecution by the winning party against those who voted against them. The Dem strategy I complain about below is one that would import this principle of politics into the domestic relationship, just as (for example) schools in California are prohibited (not just “not-required-to”) inform parents if they are facilitating a child’s “social transition” to the opposite sex. The implicit rationale for this secrecy is that parents are a menace to a trans-curious child (as though school bureaucrats love them more), just as the rationale for secrecy between spouses in voting is that husbands are a menace to wives. I suspect that in most red-blue marriages where the spouses don't engage in open disagreement (which is surely the only healthy way), it is the man who slinks around in secrecy, while the woman feels she is aligned with all that is good and publicly affirmable. But who knows, maybe I only think so because I live in California and it is the reverse in Alabama. As far as bullying spouses into voting differently, clearly Michelle Obama feels licensed to encourage black women to do this with their men (see below). Linker somehow arrives at the conclusion that I am arguing for biblical “headship” marriage in which husbands treat wives as “vassals who owe them deference when it comes to their voting decisions.” Are there such husbands in 2024? I suppose it’s not impossible. But it strikes me as an exotically anachronistic straw man.

While I’m at it: my favorite liberal these days is Matt Taibbi. Why? Because he doesn’t equate being a good liberal (which is an honorable thing to be) with deference to a deranged political machine that claims that mantle for itself.

As the dreaded Tuesday approaches, a prominent element of the Democratic strategy appears to be stoking a #Resistance attitude in women toward the men in their lives.

That is the theme for a political ad created by an outfit with the Orwellian name “Vote Common Good,” predicated on the absence of any common good between husbands and wives.

At a polling station, a woman with a flag on her hat is addressed by her husband, whose hat is emblazoned with military-looking insignia: “Your turn, honey.” The actress Julia Roberts gives the voice-over: “In the one place in America where women still have the right to choose [sic], you can vote any way you want — and no one will ever know.” The hostage-wife hovers over the ballot with her pencil, undecided. She looks up and into the eyes of a kindly woman who is also casting her vote, but with greater self-assurance (and no vulgar hat). This woman smiles encouragingly. The ISIS MAGA-bride casts her vote for Kamala and rejoins her husband, beaming. “Did you make the right choice?” he asks, with a hint of menace showing through a mask of fake affection on his stupid-looking face. She says “Sure did, honey” and casts a knowing glance at her new sister-in-arms. Julia Roberts: “Remember, what happens in the booth stays in the booth.” She might as well have said, “I’m from the Party. If you need help, just blink three times.”