Since last November, Democrats and their friends in the media have spent a great deal of time wondering what they can do to win back male voters. Now they’re prepared to spend a great deal of money to help them figure it out. The “gender gap” in American politics was traditionally about Republicans’ inability to win over a majority of women voters, but this imbalance has more than evened out over the last few election cycles. Today, the Democrats’ struggle to win male voters—and young male voters, in particular—is as pronounced—if not more so—than their opponents’ struggle with women. Some of them, at least, would like to know why and would like to spend $20 million of their donors’ money in the process.
The explanations and consequent solutions offered so far range from the seemingly practical to the hopeless to the head-scratching. One might think that $20 million would buy something more insightful than this, but then, this is the same party that triumphantly chose Tim Walz as its vice-presidential nominee, fully expecting him to be the answer to their gender gap problem. Or in other words, don’t hold your breath.
In reality, the odds that the contemporary Democratic party will be able to win back men, now or in the foreseeable future, are vanishingly small. The party, as it is currently constituted, lacks both the will and the ability to make the changes that would be necessary to do so. What I mean by this is that the contemporary Democratic party is built on a handful of foundational notions that are, by and large, incompatible with the goal of appealing to men.
To start, historically, biologically, and evolutionarily, men need a purpose. That may sound trite or even sexist, but it’s nevertheless true. Perhaps it might be more accurate to say that men need an externally imposed purpose. Whatever the case, women, by definition, have a purpose, namely to create and nurture new life. While men are necessary to create life as well, their role is, obviously, not as involved or enduring. Once upon a time—which is to say from the dawn of history until about 50 or 60 years ago—man’s purpose, therefore, was to provide for and protect the family, to enable the nurturing of new life as safely and successfully as possible. There is an evolutionary reason that men are, generally, bigger and stronger than women—because they had to be able to hunt and work for food and defend their loved ones from danger.
Over the course of the last half-century or so, men’s historical purpose has been undone. There is no sense whatsoever in lamenting this development, of course. It is what it is, which is an inevitable consequence of modernization. As the physical requirements of providing for a family have dissipated, so has men’s exclusive purview to that aspect of human existence. Women’s equality in society and the workforce is both an important and positive occurrence. The pretense that women are somehow “less than” men was always a profane notion and one that modern societies have, rightly, abandoned.
But while women have retained their evolutionary purpose and have taken on additional societal purposes, men have largely only found themselves displaced, their purpose arrogated. Again, there is no use lamenting this, but there is no use in celebrating it either, which is precisely what the contemporary Democratic party is built to do. Rather than sympathizing with men as they struggle to find their purpose in modern society, Democratic progressivism often seems to gloat at their disorientation. The Democratic Party still sees men as part of the problem, rather than part of the solution. It is fundamentally defined by its belief in a constitutional (i.e., Creator-granted) right that applies only to women and, in fact, aggressively rebukes men for even thinking that they might, theoretically, have an interest in the effects of their own behavior. Although it may not state its animating spirit quite as brashly, the Democratic party essentially functions according to the Steinem Principle (popularized by its namesake, the feminist icon Gloria Steinem) that “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.”
Democrats lament the fact that men are attracted to Joe Rogan and other “manly man” new-media stars, and (as noted in a link above), they desperately want their own Joe Rogan, a “liberal” who appeals to young and restless men. What they don’t understand is that men don’t listen to Rogan for his deep political insights. I mean, the “liberal” Joe Rogan would be… Joe Rogan, who, up until 15 minutes ago, was a Bernie Sanders guy. Rather, men listen to Rogan because he is interested in the things that used to comprise men’s purpose. He is a practitioner and a professional observer of martial arts/combat sports. He likes to fight (in a controlled environment), and he celebrates men who share that interest and those abilities. Rogan also likes to hunt. He likes to kill things and then eat them. That too appeals to otherwise lost and purposeless men. Rogan laughs, swears, and is irreverent. He doesn’t see himself as part of the problem—or as part of the solution. He just is who he is, which is someone who celebrates the things that used to define men as men.
The Democrats—in the aggregate—don’t get any of that at all.
A second, related problem for the Democrats is that they are completely out of touch with the current cultural zeitgeist among men, making their hopes of outreach painfully incoherent and cringeworthy. A few weeks ago (again, as detailed in a link above), Democratic National Committee vice chairman (and longtime anti-gun activist) David Hogg told Bill Maher that his party’s problem is that it is governed by nannies, who wish only to scold men for behaving like men. “Young people,” he said, “should be able to focus on what young people should be focused on, which is how to get laid and how to go and have fun.”
To be fair, this isn’t the most insane thing I’ve ever heard, and in some ways, it makes sense. But what neither Hogg nor his Democratic compatriots realize is that it’s no longer 1965, when the inimitable P.J. O’Rourke admittedly headed off to college and decided immediately to become a hippie liberal because, of course, the hippie liberals got all the girls. Much has changed in this country over the last 60 years, including the things that animate and interest young men.
It is inarguably true that young men are today and will always be concerned with how to attract and impress the fairer sex, but that’s not all there is to it. Young men today have been profoundly and negatively influenced by the nihilistic view that all there is to life is enjoying hedonism. Whether they recognize it cognitively or not, many have rejected that stunted and ultimately dispiriting view and desire something more substantive in their lives. There is a reason, after all, that religiosity and orthodox religiosity especially are resurgent primarily among young men. There is also a reason that young men are drinking and binge drinking less than young women today. Men are lost, and they want to find not only their way home but also their way to a brighter and more fulfilling home.
Right now, Democrats can do none of those things for men. And if I had to guess, I’d say that they wouldn’t be able to offer any of them, even if they spent $20 billion trying to figure it all out. It’s not who they are anymore. It’s not in their nature. It’s just not who they are.
