Pete Hegseth and Doug Wilson

Over the last year or so, from time to time you may have wondered to yourself why I have taken it into my head to go around talking about the 19th Amendment so much. This, along with my supposed interest in repealing the right of women to vote. Why on earth would I ever do something like that? Well, you can’t expect me to talk about slavery all the time, can you?

What I envision is a system we have practiced in our church here for four decades, and that is household voting in our polity, in our church system. About 7% of the votes are cast by women because we have a number of women who are heads of their households.

In the civic realm, the 19th Amendment, by giving the franchise to women as individuals, transformed male voters into mere individuals, and wound up disenfranchising the household. So the issue for me is not who got the franchise, but rather who lost it.

[Leila Fadel: “And you’ve called for repealing women’s right to vote, which is protected by the 19th Amendment. Why?”] Because it’s a good idea... I don’t want women voting as individuals because I don’t want men voting as individuals. So what I envision is a system that we have practiced in our church here for four decades, and that is household voting... The vote would be cast by the head of the household.

▶Watch from 26:42

Her husband wouldn’t vote instead of her; her husband would cast the vote... representing the whole household. [Sam Harris: “But presumably he would have the power to simply decide what the household should be voting, right?”] Yes, if they disagreed, he would break the tie... Under the current system where the husband and wife both go vote, if they agree with each other, all you’re doing is multiplying the total tally by two. And if they disagree with each other, then they’re just canceling each other out. They might as well just save the gas money and stay home and have a nice steak dinner.

▶Watch from 1:06:56

If you say I think men should vote and not women, snip, then that's going to be inflammatory, and actually rightly so. [Host: "Mhm."] But if you say that our concern is the disenfranchisement of households, why are households not represented in America's political system?... And so I just absolutely want to see the household represented in American polity.

▶Watch from 6:42

There are plenty of unqualified, inflammatory things I could say this month. Some might even be true. Millennials are betas. Women are bad at voting. Men are bad at leading women. Empire's great. Hamas got what it deserved. Abolitionists are silly. White people are the worst. Black people are the worst. People are the worst. I could spend my entire month triggering simpletons.

▶Watch from 3:43

We may not like the name of Christian nationalist, and we might want to have a word or two with the boys down in marketing, but in substance, we are Christian nationalists. In the meantime, I am more than willing to go by this name because we can at least work with it.

If we were in the business of using red baseball caps as a way of spreading our views, we would not opt for the MAGA hat. Our adversaries are trying to fit us out for a MAC hat—Make America Christian. Our reply to this is that if we are going to say it with hats, we would come up with a MACA hat—Make America Christian Again. [...] And not only has this Christian nationalism thing been done before, it has been done in America before. If we succeed, this will not be Christian America. If we succeed, this will be Christian America 2.0.

I actually think we need limited government. The government should be significantly smaller than it is, and we need to curtail a lot of the busybodyness that we have. That’s why I would call myself a theocratic libertarian. There is a true libertarian element in this and, yet, the transcendent grounding for what we’re talking about means that we acknowledge the authority of God.

God is angry with us. And that’s my short-form definition of Christian nationalism: America should stop making God angry... It’s a term I accept and embrace. It wasn’t a term I came up with, but I prefer it to the names I usually get called... Christian nationalism is the conviction that secularism is a failed project, and that no society can function or exist without a transcendental grounding.

▶Watch the video

This issue of eschatology I believe helps untie the knot of a debate that goes on within Christian nationalist circles, and that is: is Christian nationalism brought in as a top-down sort of thing or as a bottom-up revival, reformation and revival sort of thing? What is it? Reformation, revival bubbling up from the grassroots, or is it the steely magistrate finally deciding to knock some heads and take some names? ... Eschatology, a pervasive understanding of God's promises and intentions for the world, are a key ingredient I think in bringing these two halves together. Is it top down or is it bottom up? The answer is yes.

▶Watch from 34:24

This issue of eschatology I believe helps untie the knot of a debate that goes on within Christian nationalist circles, and that is: is Christian nationalism brought in as a top-down sort of thing or as a bottom-up revival, reformation and revival sort of thing? What is it? Reformation, revival bubbling up from the grassroots, or is it the steely magistrate finally deciding to knock some heads and take some names? ... Eschatology, a pervasive understanding of God's promises and intentions for the world, are a key ingredient I think in bringing these two halves together. Is it top down or is it bottom up? The answer is yes.

▶Watch from 34:24

Secularism: we need to abandon the idea of secularism, and replace it with the biblical doctrine of three distinct governments—family, church, and state, all of them under the authority and lordship of Jesus Christ.

Can someone committed to the long-term mission of the Christian church, which is in fact to disciple all the nations of men (Matt. 28:19-20), with the end result of that process being the obedience of all those same nations, be genuinely committed to a robust doctrine of free speech? […] Our mission remains the same, which is to bring every thought captive. The mission assigned to the church in the Great Commission is the eradication of idolatry in the entire world. […] What I am arguing for is not a secular libertarian ideal, where any man can blaspheme if he wants to. Rather, in its long war against blaspheming idols, the Christian church started by attacking the biggest blasphemers, the central blasphemers, the blasphemers with the power of coercion. […] So what I am arguing for here is a Christocentric theonomy—theonomy as though the Christ had come. It is not a question of whether the law of God is just, but rather a matter of how that standard of justice is to be implemented throughout the world. It will eventually show up in the law, but it will not be implement(sic) through the law. […] This is why my ideal Christian republic, set sometime in the future, would not have a law requiring a parapet around the roofs of houses, but would nevertheless hold a home owner liable for damages if a guest fell off a second-story deck that had no rail and broke his arm. You look at a situation, discern the principle, and apply it to a new situation. […] This means that as we teach the nations and tribes to obey every one of the Lord’s commands, and to submit to all of His teachings, this would include His teaching that Old Testament Scripture cannot be broken, and that He did not come to abolish the law but rather to fulfill it.

[Leila Fadel: "Now, you've made it clear that you want a Christian theocracy."] Yes. [Leila Fadel: "In this country. You've declared yourself a Christian nationalist. What would that look like in the United States?"] It would look like fluffy clouds and unicorns and everybody would be happy. That's my vision.

▶Watch from 15:40

[Pamela Brown: "How far off do you see a [Christian nation?], like a full-on Christian [theocracy?]?"] Oh, 250 years. [Pamela Brown: "250 years?"] Yeah... [Pamela Brown: "But you do think it will happen?"] Yes, I do. We're not going to usher in anything ourselves. We're really, genuinely pioneers.

Transcribed from the video’s automatic captions. Words in [brackets?] are our best reading of unclear audio. Watch the clip to hear it for yourself.

▶Watch from 7:02

As we continue to fulfill this obligation, the goal is to have civilization and the kingdom of God become more and more synonymous and harder and harder to tell apart.

Fadel Could [non-Christians] serve in public office? Could they vote?

Wilson So if you had a Christian republic, the Constitution would be Christian. And an office holder would have to vow to uphold the Constitution. So everybody who holds public office...

Fadel ...Would have to be Christian?

Wilson Would have to vow to uphold the Christian Constitution. Yeah.

Fadel So technically they wouldn’t be in public office?

Wilson Technically, they would not be.

[...]

Fadel So for example, I’m a woman who’s not married, who doesn’t have children and who is Muslim. So in a future Christian theocracy, where the 19th Amendment is repealed, what is my role in public life? Do I get to vote? Do I get to run for office?

Wilson No, you wouldn’t hold office because you couldn’t vow to uphold the Christian Constitution.

In order for this to happen at all, the Church must be established, in the sense that the magistrate has the responsibility to recognize her, to convene synods and councils to seek her counsel, and to listen to her. The magistrate himself has the responsibility, as a public figure, in the discharge of his office, to believe in Jesus, Lord of Heaven and earth.

I don’t think he [a non-Christian] can be an office holder, because an office holder has to swear to uphold the Constitution, and if the Constitution is explicitly Christian, I can see non-Christians wanting to live in a Christian society, but I can’t see them vowing to uphold it and defend it, etc. So yes, I think a non-believer or an infidel can be a citizen in a Christian nation; I don’t think he can be an office holder.

▶Watch from 2:23:38

If these are the tenets that hold our nation up, shouldn’t we require all office holders within our nation to hold to these standards personally? That means no atheists, by the way. Number two, that means no communists, by the way. Number three, that means no members of the Nation of Islam, by the way. Number one, no Darwinists, either.

▶Watch from 5:00

[Phil Williams: "In the America that you would like to see, Jews would be deemed unfit to hold office."] Well, I would say there's a difference between disqualified and unfit. So for example, right now you can't— [PW: "You're essentially saying they're less than."] No. If a 30-year-old man is not qualified to run for president. But he might be way better qualified than many of the people we've had as presidents. So, it's just simply these are the boundaries. Now, when you're asking about holding political office, if we're talking about America 300 years from now and we're a Christian republic, okay? And it's represented in our Constitution and laws, I want nothing more than what we currently have. Our office holders vow to uphold the Constitution, right? And if the Constitution is Christian, and it would only get that way if it did so by democratic means, lawful means, then I would want our office holders to be able to vow to uphold this Constitution, which is Christian. [PW: "But isn't that inherently anti-Semitic if you're pushing for a constitution that says Jews cannot hold office?"] No.

▶Watch from 11:46

[Cenk Uygur: "So do, okay, since I am not a Christian, if you got your way and we have Christian nationalism, do I have the same rights as you?"] There would be, yes, you'd have the same rights but you wouldn't have the same privileges. So for example... I mentioned earlier the ideal republic 500 years down the road, in a biblical republic that was explicitly Christian there would be religious tests for office holders, right? So if you came to America in 1800 and you were living in South Carolina, as a Muslim, or as an atheist actually, you wouldn't be allowed to hold public office. You couldn't be elected to the legislature. But you'd be allowed to live there... [Cenk Uygur: "But not equal because they wouldn't get to run for office... They could be ruled but they could not be part of the ruling class. Only Christians."] Correct. So, if I moved to Saudi Arabia, I wouldn't expect to be allowed to do anything in terms of governance.

▶Watch from 39:38

What frequently the states would do is they prohibited public office to someone who didn't believe in God or a future state of rewards and punishments... If we're whiteboarding this and you're asking me to describe the ideal Christian republic 500 years from now, I would sketch out a number of things. We could talk about this Presbyterian utopia 500 years from now. If you ask me what my interest is right now, my interest right now is not to exclude atheists and Muslims right now. We've got bigger fish to fry in the moment.

▶Watch from 40:59

Those people who inaugurated a high revolt against heaven and every form of natural law, right? So we're dealing— we are living in a generation of rebels... We're in the middle of a great apostasy. And that great apostasy says there is no God. Everything's chance, natural selection. We make our own rules and we have full authority to make our own rules. We don't answer to anybody. Now, consequently, I don't want those guys anywhere near the levers of power, right? ... And so consequently, I think the logical positivists and all their cousins have to be excluded from the conversation. They— their worldview cannot be given a seat at the table. Period.

▶Watch from 2:12:46

We're in the middle of a great apostasy. And that great apostasy says there is no God. Everything's chance, natural selection. We make our own rules and we have full authority to make our own rules. We don't answer to anybody. Now, consequently, I don't want those guys anywhere near the levers of power, right? ... I want the Christians to tell Caesar to quit pointing his sword at decent, law-abiding, God-fearing people because the sword is inescapable... And so consequently, I think the logical positivists and all their cousins have to be excluded from the conversation. Their worldview cannot be given a seat at the table. Period.

▶Watch from 2:13:20

There is no other way, no other option. If you will not have Christ-sons for rulers, then you have made your choice—you will have the Herod-apes for rulers.

[Leila Fadel: "So for example, I'm a woman who's not married, who doesn't have children and who is Muslim. So in a future Christian theocracy where the 19th Amendment is repealed, what is my role in public life? Do I get to vote? Do I get to run for office?"] No, you wouldn't hold office because you couldn't [vow to?] uphold the Christian constitution. And whether you voted or not would have nothing to do with whether you were a woman or not... [Leila Fadel: "If I'm the head of my household."] If you're the head of the household, if you were head of the household and Christian, you would vote. [Leila Fadel: "And if I'm head of the household and not Christian?"] Then that would depend probably on the state.

Transcribed from the video’s automatic captions. Words in [brackets?] are our best reading of unclear audio. Watch the clip to hear it for yourself.

▶Watch from 28:27

Christian men who are in the military should get out at the first lawful opportunity, and move to a community where they may defend their families instead of their current unwilling defense of the feminist agenda—which agenda appears at present to be a desire to turn the U.S. Navy into an offshore brothel.

[Pamela Brown: “And what about banning transgender military members?”] Oh, that’s great… That’s absolutely great.

▶Watch from 11:00

And in our D.C. church service, there are a number of people that are either working for the government, you know, they're assigned to the Pentagon, or they have roles in the administration. [Spencer Macnaughton: "More than 10, more than 20? Roughly, how many would you say?"] Boy, I would say between 10 and 20. [SM: "Wow, in the actual administration?"] I would say between 10 and 20 in the government... Sure, no major players at the cabinet level or anything like that. And as for the people who are the next tier or two tiers down from that, I'd rather not say because I don't want to ruin their day.

▶Watch the video