I'm a fan of Richard Reeves, but it's important to stress that he does NOT say that the problems with young men right now are BECAUSE of women; he says that a lot of this continued focus on women when they are clearly achieving and succeeding can ALSO be applied to men--there's simply no reason to support one without also supporting the other. Men are in a worse spot today than women were when Title IX was passed; we need to shift the focus back on making our young men achieve and succeed too.
I’m also working on developing a bench of candidates—if for no other reason than to build a profile of who could actually lead a Democratic coalition grounded in execution. That means leaders who can earn the trust of the professional management class that now anchors much of the party, while also bringing in business-friendly Democrats, independents, and disaffected Republicans.
It’s not about perfection. It’s about finding the ones who can govern, build coalitions, and win.
Even a bruised figure like Rahm Emanuel reminds us what toughness and competence can look like in a Democrat. We need more of that—and fewer performances.
If the dems can focus on economic issues, they can bring back many of the males and working in class that have abandoned the party over the last several election cycles
I will say that most of the manly men I know (and I live in rural America part time) talk a good game about "making things" but they suck at actually executing any big project. However, to your point, they admire the few who can build and fix things and that translates politically. They like to see action.
I live in Michigan and can pretty confidently say that Whitmer isn't running for any national office in 2028. My personal observation is that she looked around and decided no Democratic woman was getting anywhere near the ticket in 2028, so she doubled down on making nice with Trump and getting what she can for our state. Some folks are sputtering about it, but I shrug. She does what she has to do. AOC is ambitious but she is a niche candidate and divisive to boot.
Fetterman is compromised physically and mentally, Newsome is waaaayyyy too slick and superficial (and tainted by the California association), Shapiro is too East Coast and cerebral for many. Rueben Gallego and Wes Moore are certainly manly enough but I have no idea where their aspirations lie.
I don't know why you think so highly of Wes Moore? I live in MD and have lived here my entire life and I am looking to leave. It was expensive to live here before Wes Moore but the new taxes and fees and rate increases on everything are causing lifetime residents to leave. We can't afford to live here and be retired. The housing market is volatile and unaffordable for most 2 income families, yet over priced houses on the market are being purchased with cash sales...sometimes before hitting the market? All is not well in MD and Wes Moore has a lot to do with it!
If you don't know how Moore got elected, you should look into what the Dems did in the primaries when they vote-switched. The moderate Republican that everyone wanted to vote for, Kelly Schulz, somehow "lost" in the primaries to the most vile and crazy Republican that could be found. If it was a choice of Moore or Dan Cox..... Moore would win. MD politics has always been dirty.....but the Dems out did themselves on this one!
I think a lot of these blue states have an affordability problem. MD NY CA are examples. I just read the book abundance by Klein and Thompson. Politicians are only one part of the problem, it’s a system that worked well in an era of pollution and uncontrolled urban renewal but now allows too many parties to block development and make it absurdly expensive to build. Moore looks promising but like Shapiro in Pennsylvania needs to get a track record.
Most men actually know what the Democrats believe and don’t like it.
Specifically:
They opened our borders to all with no vetting and now raise holy hell when the worst among them are sent home.
They believe that a man can become a woman and can play women’s sports and enter women’s private spaces, and that children who might grow up to be gay should be mutilated in pursuit of the impossible.
They discriminate on the basis of race and sex today because in the past there was discrimination on the basis of race and sex.
Those are the avowed policies of the Democratic Party. Men are too smart to fall for it.
Probably ignored because the ideal masculine role model can't possibly be openly gay with a husband and child. If a certain subset of men aren't going to vote for a woman, they're probably not going to vote for Mayor Pete either.
I disagree with that, and I think he's a far better candidate than governor Walz, but that's the reason for the obvious omission.
TPS reports will always suck, but last time I checked Lumbergh wasn’t a girl, haha. Curious to know your thoughts of “male flight,” which has currently manifested in boys choosing not to go to college, but is a decades old phenomenon of men vacating a space once women are allowed in (see for example careers as secretaries and teachers.)
An insightful post, and good to read the comments, some I agree with, some will prompt me to dig a bit deeper (e.g. the comments about Gov Wes Moore). I appreciate the comment regarding Richard Reeves!
As the parties organize themselves around classe it is inevitable that masculinity will be interpreted differently. I don't think Dems understand how the sources of masculine pride have been undermined for working class men. Gun manufacturers have been tracking these declines with a more watchful eye than progressives. The transformation from breadwinner to protector is one orchestrated by the marketplace.
The democrats need to listen to writers like Richard reeves who wrote an excellent treatment about how men and boys are having significant struggles cause to women . Also I think they need to be much more of a leader party of labor as opposed to management as they increasingly are. It’s nice that they are appealing to college educated voters but they need to have a major outreach to voters without degrees
How about a combo of an idealized version of Jesse Ventura from A quarter of a century ago, with maybe a modern day more charismatic Joe Lieberman (RIP)
I don't think Democrats today understand why women like myself will never, ever vote for a soft man. And I won't vote for a man-bashing woman, either. I have a Dad, a brother, a husband, and 2 white sons in their 20s. I've seen what has happened and I won't sign on to that.
Well, I can say this much: If Timmy Walz wanted to play hunter, someone should have told him how to hold a shotgun. I don't think that one photo-op helped him too much with gun owners, two-thirds of whom are men. LOL
I'm a fan of Richard Reeves, but it's important to stress that he does NOT say that the problems with young men right now are BECAUSE of women; he says that a lot of this continued focus on women when they are clearly achieving and succeeding can ALSO be applied to men--there's simply no reason to support one without also supporting the other. Men are in a worse spot today than women were when Title IX was passed; we need to shift the focus back on making our young men achieve and succeed too.
The problem is men see it as a zero sum game. For them to rise, women must fall.
Well. Until we talk about education. Then whose fault is it? If boys are failing in school—and our schools are run by one group… whose fault is it?
I’m also working on developing a bench of candidates—if for no other reason than to build a profile of who could actually lead a Democratic coalition grounded in execution. That means leaders who can earn the trust of the professional management class that now anchors much of the party, while also bringing in business-friendly Democrats, independents, and disaffected Republicans.
It’s not about perfection. It’s about finding the ones who can govern, build coalitions, and win.
Even a bruised figure like Rahm Emanuel reminds us what toughness and competence can look like in a Democrat. We need more of that—and fewer performances.
If the dems can focus on economic issues, they can bring back many of the males and working in class that have abandoned the party over the last several election cycles
I will say that most of the manly men I know (and I live in rural America part time) talk a good game about "making things" but they suck at actually executing any big project. However, to your point, they admire the few who can build and fix things and that translates politically. They like to see action.
I live in Michigan and can pretty confidently say that Whitmer isn't running for any national office in 2028. My personal observation is that she looked around and decided no Democratic woman was getting anywhere near the ticket in 2028, so she doubled down on making nice with Trump and getting what she can for our state. Some folks are sputtering about it, but I shrug. She does what she has to do. AOC is ambitious but she is a niche candidate and divisive to boot.
Fetterman is compromised physically and mentally, Newsome is waaaayyyy too slick and superficial (and tainted by the California association), Shapiro is too East Coast and cerebral for many. Rueben Gallego and Wes Moore are certainly manly enough but I have no idea where their aspirations lie.
Good thing 2028 is a long way away.
I don't know why you think so highly of Wes Moore? I live in MD and have lived here my entire life and I am looking to leave. It was expensive to live here before Wes Moore but the new taxes and fees and rate increases on everything are causing lifetime residents to leave. We can't afford to live here and be retired. The housing market is volatile and unaffordable for most 2 income families, yet over priced houses on the market are being purchased with cash sales...sometimes before hitting the market? All is not well in MD and Wes Moore has a lot to do with it!
If you don't know how Moore got elected, you should look into what the Dems did in the primaries when they vote-switched. The moderate Republican that everyone wanted to vote for, Kelly Schulz, somehow "lost" in the primaries to the most vile and crazy Republican that could be found. If it was a choice of Moore or Dan Cox..... Moore would win. MD politics has always been dirty.....but the Dems out did themselves on this one!
I think a lot of these blue states have an affordability problem. MD NY CA are examples. I just read the book abundance by Klein and Thompson. Politicians are only one part of the problem, it’s a system that worked well in an era of pollution and uncontrolled urban renewal but now allows too many parties to block development and make it absurdly expensive to build. Moore looks promising but like Shapiro in Pennsylvania needs to get a track record.
Most men actually know what the Democrats believe and don’t like it.
Specifically:
They opened our borders to all with no vetting and now raise holy hell when the worst among them are sent home.
They believe that a man can become a woman and can play women’s sports and enter women’s private spaces, and that children who might grow up to be gay should be mutilated in pursuit of the impossible.
They discriminate on the basis of race and sex today because in the past there was discrimination on the basis of race and sex.
Those are the avowed policies of the Democratic Party. Men are too smart to fall for it.
What about Pete Buttigieg? Noticed he was conspicuously absent from your list of potential Dem candidates.
Probably ignored because the ideal masculine role model can't possibly be openly gay with a husband and child. If a certain subset of men aren't going to vote for a woman, they're probably not going to vote for Mayor Pete either.
I disagree with that, and I think he's a far better candidate than governor Walz, but that's the reason for the obvious omission.
TPS reports will always suck, but last time I checked Lumbergh wasn’t a girl, haha. Curious to know your thoughts of “male flight,” which has currently manifested in boys choosing not to go to college, but is a decades old phenomenon of men vacating a space once women are allowed in (see for example careers as secretaries and teachers.)
An insightful post, and good to read the comments, some I agree with, some will prompt me to dig a bit deeper (e.g. the comments about Gov Wes Moore). I appreciate the comment regarding Richard Reeves!
As the parties organize themselves around classe it is inevitable that masculinity will be interpreted differently. I don't think Dems understand how the sources of masculine pride have been undermined for working class men. Gun manufacturers have been tracking these declines with a more watchful eye than progressives. The transformation from breadwinner to protector is one orchestrated by the marketplace.
The democrats need to listen to writers like Richard reeves who wrote an excellent treatment about how men and boys are having significant struggles cause to women . Also I think they need to be much more of a leader party of labor as opposed to management as they increasingly are. It’s nice that they are appealing to college educated voters but they need to have a major outreach to voters without degrees
How about a combo of an idealized version of Jesse Ventura from A quarter of a century ago, with maybe a modern day more charismatic Joe Lieberman (RIP)
I mean the fact that there’s a Dem version of a white man is truly insane!
I don't think Democrats today understand why women like myself will never, ever vote for a soft man. And I won't vote for a man-bashing woman, either. I have a Dad, a brother, a husband, and 2 white sons in their 20s. I've seen what has happened and I won't sign on to that.
Well, I can say this much: If Timmy Walz wanted to play hunter, someone should have told him how to hold a shotgun. I don't think that one photo-op helped him too much with gun owners, two-thirds of whom are men. LOL
Thank you. I, perhaps need this critique of the way we talk about men as 'bros'.
I’m glad my writing is having an effect on folks.
I’m kidding. Kind of.