The Democrats must think young men are idiots
The Democrats are desperately trying to win back young men. They have been haemorrhaging support among the group, 56 per cent of whom backed Donald Trump in 2024 according to one study. Party leaders have realised that there is no credible path back to power so long as they continue to alienate the male voters of the future.
Judging by their efforts so far, they're going to be languishing in the wilderness for a while yet. Witness the ridicule attracted by one of their latest projects – a $20 million effort called 'speaking with American men: a strategic plan' (or SAM). It appears to centre, in part, on the genius idea that all will be solved if only Democrats bought more ad space in video games.
To be fair to the project's originators, they have accepted that they must 'shift from a moralising tone'. But how easy will that be for the Left, given the sheer contempt they have displayed towards young men and some of the things many of them enjoy?
Recall the climate of the past few years, as Democrats and their media allies bent over themselves to denounce masculinity itself as 'toxic'. Even relatively quotidian behaviours came under fire. Eating red meat was disparaged by The New Republic as one of 'conservatives' darker fantasies'. Getting fit, said The Guardian, was liable to turn you into a 'Right-wing jerk'. Young men's predilection for attractive women was sneered at by Newsweek, which labelled it an 'obsession'.
It's a vicious cycle. The Left dismisses young men as problematic, pushing them to the Right. As they retreat to the manosphere and messaging that legitimises their masculinity instead of scoffing at it, Democrats demonise them as incel recluses who are dangerously interested in weight-lifting, protein-maxing, and heteronormative beauty standards.
It's true that young men have their problems (though, from poor mental health to academic underperformance, Democrats rarely want to talk about them). But while the Left-wing media accuses them of having god complexes and delusional overconfidence because they enjoy steak and aspire to beat their bench-press records, they neglect to mention the destructive and self-indulgent new-age interests of many young women. Take the self-care craze, which has led many down an egotistical slippery slope to soft occultism and thinking that femininity is 'divine'.
By attacking good eating habits and physical strength as fringe male pursuits, the Left shows that it wants young men as supporters only if they agree to be disempowered. This serves as more motivation for them to double down on conservatism, which doesn't ask them to repent for being who they are.
Democrats love to scold, most of all young men. On the 2024 campaign trail, one particularly cringe-worthy Harris-supporting ad featured a cast of presumed actors implying that real men should back a woman for president.
Former president Barack Obama, meanwhile, chastised black men who were voting for Trump or were reluctant to vote for Harris, suggesting that they were sexist.
'And you are thinking about sitting out?' Obama said. 'Part of it makes me think – and I'm speaking to men directly – part of it makes me think that, well, you just aren't feeling the idea of having a woman as president, and you're coming up with other alternatives and other reasons for that.' Instead of hearing black men's fears for a Harris presidency and hopes for a Trump one – such as better economic and immigration policies – Obama reduced them to bigots.
And then there was Tim Walz, Harris's running mate, who claimed in April that she tapped him to 'code talk to white guys'. He bragged that he spoke the secret language of men 'watching football, fixing their truck,' and that he 'put them at ease', describing himself as the 'permission structure' for rural white men to vote for Democrats.
The implication was that men don't vote based on who has their family's interests at heart but on who aligns with their prejudices. To persuade them to vote for Harris in 2024, Walz insulted men's intelligence by cosplaying as Larry the Cable Guy in camo gear.
Inspiring confidence in young men was never something that could be forced. The Democrats are still approaching them like a dissident group in need of reprogramming, rather than voters capable of rationality. More young men are questioning the sexual revolution and taking a stand against DEI. But instead of asking why they are disengaging from Left-wing politics, all the Democrats have are gimmicks. Whatever Democratic propaganda makes its way onto Call of Duty, it will suffer from an authenticity problem.
Many young men attached themselves to Trump because they viewed him as the natural archetype of an alpha male. His bold, unapologetic demeanour was cathartic to a generation of men told by woke culture to atone for their privilege and take a backseat.
A legacy of the Democratic Party is that it is responsible for this war on men. Until they make amends for that, young men's grievances will continue to find a home with the Republican Party. Expensive research and mind games will get Democrats nowhere.
Caroline Downey is a staff writer at National Review and a senior fellow at the Independent Women's Forum
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
18 minutes ago
- Axios
"Who cares": Congress' Dems say good riddance to Karine Jean-Pierre
If former White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre thought she would set off a five-alarm fire among top Democrats by leaving the party, she is about to be sorely disappointed. Why it matters: Democratic lawmakers who spoke to Axios characterized her personal motives as too transparent to be a knock on the party — and they don't exactly feel like they're losing their best messenger either. "Who cares," exclaimed one House Democrat. "It's easy for paid operatives to leave the party ... until they need something." Said another: "Her explanation for this move is as confusing and disjointed as her answers in her White House press briefings." Jean-Pierre did not respond to a request for comment. Driving the news: Jean-Pierre revealed Wednesday that she is becoming an independent after serving in two Democratic presidential administrations. The announcement coincides with the release of a new book, "Independent: A Look Inside a Broken White House, Outside the Party Lines." The book's description decries "blind loyalty to a two-party democratic system" and promises to delve into "the three weeks that led to Biden's abandoning his bid for a second term and the betrayal by the Democratic Party that led to his decision." What they're saying: "Other than Sean Spicer ... she was the worst press secretary in American history," a third House Democrat told Axios of Jean-Pierre. "There were rumors that the Biden folks were trying to get rid of her because she's so terrible," the lawmaker said, speculating that she is trying to curry favor with Republicans to avoid a congressional subpoena. "I don't know who wrote her book. We know she couldn't give a press conference without reading every word from her briefing," they added. Zoom in: Jean-Pierre has also been lit up by her former Biden White House colleagues, with one former official telling Axios' Alex Thompson she was "one of the most ineffectual and unprepared people I've ever worked with." "She had meltdowns after any interview that asked about a topic not sent over by producers," the official said. Said another: "The amount of time that was spent coddling [Jean-Pierre] and appeasing her was astronomical compared to our attention on actual matters of substance." Zoom out: The latest Bidenworld infighting comes after the release of a new book from Thompson and CNN's Jake Tapper, " Original Sin," which recounts how Biden's team shielded him from public scrutiny about his age.
Axios
18 minutes ago
- Axios
Democrats more likely than Republicans to boycott brands, new survey
Why it matters: These murky expectations highlight the complicated environment businesses are currently operating in. What they're saying: "Businesses need to understand how their brand aligns to current issues and the values that matter to their customer base," says Mallory Newall, vice president at Ipsos. "Brands cannot please everyone, and wading into the political fray does not come without risk. It needs to be done in a strategic way. However, there are potential upsides if companies have a clear understanding of who they're talking to and who their customers are. Those who act inauthentically will lose ground in this environment," she added. State of play: There's a disconnect in what consumers say and what they do. 53% of Americans say they are less likely to buy from a company that takes a stance they don't agree with, but only 30% actually do. Between the lines: A company's political or social stances influence Democrats more than Republicans, per the survey. Democrats are more likely to boycott (40%) than Republicans (24%), but they are also 2x more likely to go out of their way to support a brand that aligns with their values. Target is the latest American corporation to grapple with these boycotts, following its retreat from diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. Of note: Boycotting is a luxury afforded to those with disposable income, per the survey. Households with incomes of $100k and above are 50% more likely to stop buying from a company they disagree with than those households making $50k and below. What to watch: 67% of Democrats say they are closely tracking how companies respond to pending Supreme Court decisions, compared to 52% of Republicans. There is more appetite across party lines for business commentary on economic issues — like inflation and trade policies — than other policy issues. The bottom line: "The data suggest that Democratic consumers are much more likely to actually follow through on the threat to withhold or reduce spending when they disagree with brands during this era of complete GOP control," says Matt House, managing partner at CLYDE.
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What the Trump travel ban means for the 2026 World Cup and 2028 Olympic Games
GENEVA (AP) — U.S. President Donald Trump often says the 2026 World Cup and 2028 Los Angeles Olympics are among the events he is most excited about in his second term. Yet there is significant uncertainty regarding visa policies for foreign visitors planning trips to the U.S. for the two biggest events in sports. Trump's latest travel ban on citizens from 12 countries added new questions about the impact on the World Cup and the Summer Olympics, which depend on hosts opening their doors to the world. Here's a look at the potential effects of the travel ban on those events. What is the travel ban policy? When Sunday ticks over to Monday, citizens of 12 countries should be banned from entering the U.S. They are Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Tighter restrictions will apply to visitors from seven more: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. Trump said some countries had 'deficient' screening and vetting processes or have historically refused to take back their own citizens. How does it affect the World Cup and Olympics? Iran, a soccer power in Asia, is the only targeted country to qualify so far for the World Cup being co-hosted by the U.S., Canada and Mexico in one year's time. Cuba, Haiti and Sudan are in contention. Sierra Leone might stay involved through multiple playoff games. Burundi, Equatorial Guinea and Libya have very outside shots. But all should be able to send teams to the World Cup if they qualify because the new policy makes exceptions for 'any athlete or member of an athletic team, including coaches, persons performing a necessary support role, and immediate relatives, traveling for the World Cup, Olympics, or other major sporting event as determined by the secretary of state.' About 200 countries could send athletes to the Summer Games, including those targeted by the latest travel restrictions. The exceptions should apply to them as well if the ban is still in place in its current form. What about fans? The travel ban doesn't mention any exceptions for fans from the targeted countries wishing to travel to the U.S. for the World Cup or Olympics. Even before the travel ban, fans of the Iran soccer team living in that country already had issues about getting a visa for a World Cup visit. Still, national team supporters often profile differently to fans of club teams who go abroad for games in international competitions like the UEFA Champions League. For many countries, fans traveling to the World Cup — an expensive travel plan with hiked flight and hotel prices — are often from the diaspora, wealthier, and could have different passport options. A World Cup visitor is broadly higher-spending and lower-risk for host nation security planning. Visitors to an Olympics are often even higher-end clients, though tourism for a Summer Games is significantly less than at a World Cup, with fewer still from most of the 19 countries now targeted. How is the U.S. working with FIFA, Olympic officials? FIFA President Gianni Infantino has publicly built close ties since 2018 to Trump — too close according to some. He has cited the need to ensure FIFA's smooth operations at a tournament that will earn a big majority of the soccer body's expected $13 billion revenue from 2023-26. Infantino sat next to Trump at the White House task force meeting on May 6 which prominently included Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem. FIFA's top delegate on the task force is Infantino ally Carlos Cordeiro, a former Goldman Sachs partner whose two-year run as U.S. Soccer Federation president ended in controversy in 2020. Any visa and security issues FIFA faces — including at the 32-team Club World Cup that kicks off next week in Miami — can help LA Olympics organizers finesse their plans. 'I don't anticipate any, any problems from any countries to come and participate,' LA Games chairman Casey Wasserman told International Olympic Committee officials in March. He revealed then, at an IOC meeting in Greece, two discreet meetings with Trump and noted the State Department has a 'fully staffed desk' to help prepare for short-notice visa processing in the summer of 2028 — albeit with a focus on teams rather than fans. 'Irrespective of politics today,' Wasserman said in March, 'America will be open and accepting to all 209 countries for the Olympics.' FIFA and the IOC didn't immediately respond to requests for comment about the new Trump travel ban. What have other host nations done? The 2018 World Cup host Russia let fans enter the country with a game ticket doubling as their visa. So did Qatar four years later. Both governments, however, also performed background checks on all visitors coming to the month-long soccer tournaments. Governments have refused entry to unwelcome visitors. For the 2012 London Olympics, Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko — who is still its authoritarian leader today — was denied a visa despite also leading its national Olympic body. The IOC also suspended him from the Tokyo Olympics held in 2021. ___ AP soccer: and AP Olympics at
