You’re likely familiar with a chin-scratch-worthy video that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth posted lately. It featured his pastor, Doug Wilson, waxing theological on the appropriate role of women in leadership. (TL;DW: pretty much nada.) Hegseth’s own helpful tagline is “All of Christ for All of Life.” It also showcased Wilson calling for the recriminalization of LGBTQ+ behavior and explaining that every government is, in essence, a theocracy. The U.S. must turn away from our current “Theo,” the people, and claim Christ as our Head.
Nothing weird or alarming here at all.
Yet I dare to call this video “head-scratching” for two reasons. First, it prompts the question of what exactly is Hegseth’s stance here? Is this a quasi-official endorsement of its content, or is Hegseth just tossing it out for our contemplation, like a bulked-up modern-day Socrates innocently engaging in philosophical conversation? Second, it prompts the question: what in the flippin’ heck-fire is going on in D.C., in the Republican Party, and in the country at large?
Aside from those questions, Hegseth’s intent in posting the video is pretty clear.
Molly Olmstead of Slate took the old-fashioned journalistic approach and tried to nail Hegseth’s position down, particularly with regard to women voting. As she put it:
“Slate reached out to the Pentagon. In calls and an email, we made it clear that we were asking specifically for clarification on Hegseth’s view on women’s voting rights. We asked directly, and in the final line of a very brief email: ‘Does Secretary Hegseth believe women should have the right to vote?’”
Here’s the Pentagon’s full reply, via Chief Pentagon Spokesman Sean Parnell:
“Hello. Thanks for your note. Here is our statement: ‘The Secretary is a proud member of a church affiliated with the Congregation of Reformed Evangelical Churches, which was founded by Pastor Doug Wilson. The Secretary very much appreciates many of Mr. Wilson’s writings and teachings.’”
Olmstead’s take is professional and admirably measured. She calls it a kind of non-answer and poses the logical follow-up: Why won’t Hegseth answer the question directly? She refrains from jumping to conclusions, though she acknowledges the obvious possibility that he’s opposed to female suffrage.
I think she’s being remarkably generous. As I read the statement, Hegseth’s answer is actually pretty clear: the dude just prefers to deliver it with plausible deniability. This is, after all, a man who worked at Fox News, where the “some people say” trope has been honed to an art form. The gambit, which we’re all familiar with, goes like this: advance a shocking claim, give it implicit endorsement, then deny ownership. “Hey, I’m just sharing what others are saying.” It’s a step away from throwing your hands up in pretended innocence and proclaiming, “I’m just saying…” No evidence needed. No follow-up intended. But the point is made.
I think the takeaway of Hegseth’s video and the Pentagon’s clarification is meant to be obvious. Not only is the meaning obvious, but it’s obvious that it’s obvious. Obviously so. But also obviously plausibly deniable.
Therefore in the spirit of our times, it’s crucial to note that some people are saying that Pete Hegseth absolutely opposes women’s right to vote. Indeed, some of these same people are also saying he’s a flat-out misogynist and bigot. Of course, I’m withholding judgment myself. I just think it’s worth mentioning, wholly in the name of fairness, that this is something others are saying.
Note: Edited this on 8/13. I originally mistakenly asserted that there were two videos when, in reality, a shorter video was excerpted from an extended CNN interview video.
