That statement does not counter a reading that Thiel believes granting women suffrage was a bad thing, and that this, combined with the expansion of social welfare programs, is incompatible with his ideals. All he says is it would be absurd to take it away now, and it wouldn't solve the problems he cares about.
"The 1920s were the last decade in American history during which one could be genuinely optimistic about politics. Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron."
So if you break down his line of reasoning:
- 1920s were good because one could be optimistic about politics
- This changed when welfare programs were expanded and women were granted the right to vote
- Therefore, granting women the right to vote was a bad thing
I mean I dunno, regardless of how I read it, I can't extract any positive meaning from anything he said. He even said that he no longer believes freedom and democracy are compatible. So yeah...
He did not say that. Read the article yourself. https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...