logo
The real story isn't young men supposedly voting far right. It's what young women are up to

The real story isn't young men supposedly voting far right. It's what young women are up to

The Guardian21-05-2025

'The boys are alt-right.' This seems to be the new consensus on far-right politics propagated in numerous articles and podcasts. But the media's obsessive focus on the young men allegedly fuelling the rise of the far right isn't just empirically flawed – it misses a much more significant shift in public opinion among young people. While many surveys show a large gender gap in support of far-right parties and policies, it is young women who stand out as the more politically interesting demographic, as they are turning in ever greater numbers towards the left.
The idea that young people in general, and young men in particular, disproportionately support the far right has been around for a while. In a classic 2012 study, the German political scientist Kai Arzheimer characterised the 'typical' voter of far-right parties in Europe as 'male, young(ish), of moderate educational achievement and concerned about immigrants and immigration'. It is frequently used to explain the rise of Donald Trump, while in Europe there has been an explosion of articles claiming that young people, particularly young men, are 'driving far-right support'. But is the recent rise of Europe's far right truly due to the disproportionate support of young men? And are young people really becoming more rightwing?
Levels of support for far-right parties among young people are indeed higher than ever before in many cases. But articles on this subject often fail to mention that far-right parties have increased their support overall, and that support among other age groups is at least as high. A study of the 2024 European elections even showed lower support for far-right parties among young voters (aged 16-29) than among older voters. More interestingly, while young men voted for far-right parties in similar numbers to older men, young women voted less for far-right parties than older women.
Most research shows that young people – both women and men – hold more progressive values than previous generations. While there is a larger gender gap among young people, the main reason for this is not a rightwing turn among young men but a sharp leftwing turn among young women, as Gaby Hinsliff noted in a perceptive recent column for the Guardian.
That the media chooses nevertheless to focus on young men illustrates the male gaze that continues to dominate society, which not only means that whatever men do or think is deemed inherently important and worthy of both academic and political attention, but also sets men as the norm. This ends up strengthening the far right's political prospects: given that men are the norm, what they supposedly do or think is deemed 'normal', which means that all politicians should come up with 'commonsense' policies to cater to them.
To be clear, 'the boys' may not be not 'alt-right' but they are also not all right. Many studies have found that young men struggle in terms of education, mental health and work. And politically, research shows that while young men do not vote more for far-right parties than older men, they do consider voting for far-right parties in much larger numbers. Moreover, they are more susceptible to 'modern sexism' – denying that women continue to be discriminated against and rejecting demands for increased gender equality.
Of course it is important to better understand these developments, particularly given the threat that the far right poses to liberal democracy. But this should not lead us to minimise or even ignore the more pronounced generational shift to the left. That young women are more supportive of abortion rights or feminism than young men and even older women should not be that surprising, given that these issues affect them more directly and personally. Yet they are also more concerned about the environment and more supportive of redistribution and a larger role for the state. Why is this?
This is not just an academic question: it is a political opportunity. Centre-left parties have followed the male gaze into chasing an outdated interpretation of the 'working-class' voter (narrowly defined as white men with rightwing sociocultural views). This electoral strategy pushes politics further to the right. Moreover, as decades of academic research have shown, it serves mainly to help far-right parties while hurting centre-left parties, which end up losing (young, female) progressive voters and barely gaining the (male) reactionary voters they court.
Focusing on the priorities and values of female voters (such as actions to fight the climate crisis and strengthen the welfare state), rather than pandering to the reactionary politics of the far right, would have two major advantages for progressive politics in general and for leftwing parties in particular. First, it would transform the political debate: we would talk more about combating the climate crisis, for instance, and spend less time demonising immigrants. Second, it gives young women a reason to come out and vote in larger numbers, which is significant, as 'young women abstain from voting more than young men do'. The opportunity is there for the taking.
Cas Mudde is the Stanley Wade Shelton UGAF professor of international affairs at the University of Georgia, and author of The Far Right Today

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Shaken by crises, Switzerland fetters UBS's global dream
Shaken by crises, Switzerland fetters UBS's global dream

Reuters

time17 minutes ago

  • Reuters

Shaken by crises, Switzerland fetters UBS's global dream

BERN, June 6 (Reuters) - Switzerland announced reforms on Friday to make its biggest bank UBS (UBSG.S), opens new tab safer and avoid another crisis, hampering the global ambitions of a lender whose financial weight eclipses the country's economy. UBS emerged as Switzerland's sole global bank more than two years ago after the government hastily arranged its rescue of scandal-hit Credit Suisse to prevent a disorderly collapse. The demise of Credit Suisse, one of the world's biggest banks, rattled global markets and blindsided officials and regulators, whose struggle to steer the lender as it lurched from one scandal to the next underscored their weakness. On Friday, speaking from the same podium where she had announced the Credit Suisse rescue in 2023 as finance minister, Switzerland's president Karin Keller-Sutter delivered a firm message. The country would not be wrongfooted again. "I don't believe that the competitiveness will be impaired, but it is true that growth abroad will become more expensive," Keller-Sutter said of UBS. "We've had two crises. 2008 and 2023," she said. "If you see something that is broken, you have to fix it." During the global financial crisis of 2008, UBS was hit by a losses in subprime debt, as a disastrous expansion into riskier investment banking forced it to write down tens of billions of dollars and ultimately turn to the state for help. Memories of that crisis also linger, reinforcing the government's resolve after the collapse of Credit Suisse. For UBS, which has a financial balance sheet of around $1.7 trillion, far bigger than the Swiss economy, the implications of the reforms proposed on Friday are clear. Switzerland no longer wants to back its international growth. "Bottom line: who is carrying the risk for growth abroad?" said Keller-Sutter. "The bank, its owners or the state?" The rules the government proposed demand that UBS in Switzerland holds more capital to cover risks in its foreign operations. That move, one of the most important steps taken by the Swiss in a series of otherwise piecemeal measures, will make UBS's businesses abroad more expensive to run for one of the globe's largest banks for millionaires and billionaires. Following publication of the reform plans, UBS Chairman Colm Kelleher and CEO Sergio Ermotti said in an internal memo that if fully implemented, they would undermine the bank's "global competitive footprint" and hurt the Swiss economy. The reform would require UBS to hold as much as $26 billion in extra capital. Some believe the demands may alter the bank's course. "It could be that UBS has to change its strategy of growth in the United States and Asia," said Andreas Venditti, an analyst at Vontobel. "It's not just growing. It makes the existing business more expensive. It is an incentive to get smaller and this will most likely happen." Credit Suisse's demise exploded the myth of invincibility of one of the wealthiest countries in the world, home to a global reserve currency, and proved as unworkable a central reform of the financial crisis to prevent state bailouts. For many in Switzerland, the government's reforms are long overdue. "The bank is bigger than the entire Swiss economy. It makes sense that it should not grow even bigger," said Andreas Missbach of Alliance Sud, a group that campaigns for transparency. "It is good that the government did not give in to lobbying by UBS. The question is whether it is enough. We have a banking crisis roughly every 12 years. So I'm not really put at ease." UBS CEO Ermotti had lobbied against the reforms, arguing that a heavy capital burden would put the bank on the back foot with rivals. The world's second-largest wealth manager after Morgan Stanley is dwarfed by its U.S. peer. Morgan Stanley shares value the firm at twice its book value, compared with UBS's 20% premium to book. On Friday, the bank reiterated this message, saying that it strongly disagreed with the "extreme" increase in capital. But others are sceptical that the government has done enough. Hans Gersbach, a professor at ETH Zurich, said there was still no proper plan to cope should UBS run into trouble. "The credibility of the too big to fail regime remains in question."

Roman Abramovich: From rags, to riches, to 'ripping off' Ukraine
Roman Abramovich: From rags, to riches, to 'ripping off' Ukraine

Sky News

time20 minutes ago

  • Sky News

Roman Abramovich: From rags, to riches, to 'ripping off' Ukraine

👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈 The government is threatening to take former Chelsea FC owner Roman Abramovich to court over the proceeds of the sale of the Premier League club. Three years after being sanctioned for the oligarch's links to the Russian president, £2.5bn remains frozen in a bank account. The funds are earmarked for Ukrainian aid, but where will they end up? In today's episode, Niall Paterson talks to financier and author Bill Browder and Sky's sports correspondent Rob Harris about how Abramovich went from orphan to oligarch and where sanctions leave him today. Lawyers for Abramovich did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Trump vs Musk is the final battle before economic catastrophe
Trump vs Musk is the final battle before economic catastrophe

Telegraph

time23 minutes ago

  • Telegraph

Trump vs Musk is the final battle before economic catastrophe

Who needs reality TV when there's the psychodrama of Trump's White House to keep us all entertained? As plot lines go, the falling out between Elon Musk and Donald Trump was perhaps about as predictable as they come, but the sheer venom, speed and combustibility of the divorce has nevertheless proved utterly captivating. Even the best of Hollywood scriptwriters would have struggled to do better. The stench of betrayal hangs heavy in the air, a veritable revenger's tragedy of a drama. Beneath it all, however, lies a rather more serious matter than the sight of two of the world's richest and most powerful men breaking up and exchanging insults. And it's one which afflicts nearly all major, high income economies. Slowly but surely – and at varying speeds – they are all going bust. Yet few of them even seem capable of recognising it, let alone doing anything to correct it. None more so than the United States, where the Congressional Budget Office last week estimated that Trump's 'one big, beautiful bill' would add a further $2.4 trillion to the national debt by 2034. Let's not take sides, but Musk was absolutely right when he described the bill as 'a disgusting abomination'. It taxes far too little, and it spends far too much. It is hard to imagine a more reckless piece of make-believe. Musk had backed Trump not just out of self-interest – more government contracts, protection of the electric vehicle mandate, personal aggrandisement and so on – but because he genuinely believed he could help stop the US from bankrupting itself. This has proved a monumental conceit. The $2 trillion of savings in federal spending he initially promised has turned out to be at most $200bn, and probably substantially less once double accounting and wishful thinking is factored in. In any case, against total federal spending last year of nearly £7 trillion, it is but a drop in the ocean, and only goes to show just how difficult it is to find serious savings in government administration even when given a free hand with the headcount.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store