Fantastic writing Conor. However, I don't necessarily see it as a female/male perspective problem, (although probably more men do want autonomy). I see it more as a general infantalization of society, where we are all encouraged to sit back and let Mammy/Daddy/The Government do stuff for us. It robs us of agency in our own lives.
It's a problem of scale, and Ivan Ilich talked about this back in the 1970s, the bigger a society gets, the more it is inclined to relegate citizens to the role of passive consumers. People (and particularly men) don't like this. We want to be authors of our own lives, not an audience for some Very Clever People to show us all how to Do Life Properly and grateful for some pablum on Be Kind to Everyone, whilst struggling to feed our families.
I've just written a piece on Ivan Illich's ideas around energy, it's high time his ideas came back into the mainstream imo. Keep up the good work!
Thanks. I agree it’s not a male female issue but there has been a lot of back and forth post-US elections on the left/ liberal/ progressive disconnect with men, so I wanted to look at it through that lens and point out some factors I felt they were missing
But that's a weird, and incorrect, lens. The much clearer lens is that the liberal position(s) is no longer liberal, and only Left(ist). Which, in turn, is destructive to any Liberal order. There is no 'alt-right pipeline' and other unholys seducing boys and men....there is a return to common sense and critical thinking, which exposes the idiocy and dangers of illiberal Leftism.
Thanks for writing this, with which I pretty much entirely agree.
"Trump is a success because he was the embodiment of an individual imposing himself on the world, as embodied by a system that hates you, rather than the other way round. Quite a lot of men instinctively like that, and by definition you cannot beat it with more social programmes or the promise of a tear-filled struggle session."
This passage reminds me of an incident at an academic music conference in 2017. I attended a panel on music in political campaigns in which the panelists—all liberal, left-leaning academics—were remarking bewilderingly on Trump's use of the Rolling Stones' song, "You Can't Always Get What You Want" during his 2016 campaign rallies. They could not understand why he would use it or what it meant.
As someone who has always leaned conservative, despite many years of liberal indoctrination, it was quite obvious, so I put up my hand and told them. The point was in the title and chorus of the song: that you can't always get what you want; that politics and governments aren't about just giving people what they want as liberals like to believe. Trump's message was one of strength and self-assertion, in marked contrast to that of Hillary Clinton and later Kamala Harris, for whom the purpose of government is to give you things in order to make life easier, which for many (if not most) men, and many women as well, is a horrifying possibility. This was a point Dostoevsky made in the 1850s in Notes from Underground, which these all-too-proud academics should have understood:
"And why are you so firmly, so triumphantly, convinced that only the normal and the positive—in other words, only what is conducive to welfare—is for the advantage of man? Is not reason in error as regards advantage? Does not man, perhaps, love something besides well-being? Perhaps he is just as fond of suffering? Perhaps suffering is just as great a benefit to him as well-being? Man is sometimes extraordinarily, passionately, in love with suffering, and that is a fact. There is no need to appeal to universal history to prove that; only ask yourself, if you are a man and have lived at all."
I had this very conversation a month ago, with a University of Chicago philosophy undergrad who brought it up to me. Your note helps me better understand what he was saying to me.
I also recognize this dynamic in the 2016 Democratic party primary with campaign messaging and young people. Contrary to the stereotype, Sanders's youth appeal was never about the "free stuff." I remember how the Clinton 2016 campaign website's page for young people assumed the target audience was naïve, neurotic, afraid of the future, and needed a bunch of stuff done for (to?) them. Meanwhile, the Sanders 2016 campaign truly had their finger on the pulse, that young people simply wanted to have the same economic opportunities that their parents' generation had. And before that, on the right, Ron Paul's relative popularity with young people was about taking them seriously, running on a restoration of civil liberties versus the establishment Republican nanny state of the Patriot Act.
I’m not the biggest Sanders fan but I agree mostly. He made his campaign about this noble fight of regular people against the system, rather then individual sects of grievance-mongers to be satisfied in turn
This is just a strange re-alignment overall. Right and Left, at least the traditional definitions of them, are no longer the most important differences. It's something more like centralization versus resistance to centralization? See the Assisted Dying law in the UK... from what I can see, it had bipartisan support AND bipartisan opposition.
I read somewhere on Substack that it looks like we're getting another change in the polarity of the parties like what happened with the Southern Strategy. It feels true to me, as it's clear the Democrats are now the party of the establishment and the Republicans, because of Trump usurping them, is now the anti-establishment party.
Which is crazy talk to anyone on the Left because they view "the establishment" as straight white christian cis (etc) males and anyone foolishly aligning themselves with such monsters (aka me). But the majority of voters now view "the establishment" as the State and the people and institutions aligned with the State.
Probably this re-alignment is happening because while the Republicans used to be as Statist as the Democrats but with some mild libertarian rhetoric, now they're not. Trump's awful in many, many ways but he is for sure aligned against the ever-suffocating, ever-expanding State.
See, no self-respecting old-school leftist would define “the establishment” as a spiritual conspiracy of everyday people who continue to somehow perpetuate various “isms” by not having the correct sort of consciousness. Old-school leftists are grounded in the real world and material concerns and “the establishment” however it’s defined would have to be something concrete, like state and corporate power, the military-industrial complex, and so on.
The scam feels very obvious when you don’t believe in it: the scary power structure is just everyday life and your non-woke neighbors who have the wrong worldview. And the only thing that can save you from the scary postmodern power structure is — conveniently — for the actual power structure, the government, etc., to censor and suppress your neighbors.
And just to show how different things are now: you can look up old clips of Fox News media blackout of Ron Paul during the 2008 and 2012 primaries, including blatantly skipping over his name when he was a runner-up in at least one state.
"No humility, no self-awareness, and no sense that another way of looking at the world is valid: this won’t be an easy trap to get out of. The tendency of progressive advocates to present their opinions as inarguable moral demands and to use culture as a bludgeon to enforce those demands has left them in a head-in-the-clouds position - that is, elevated, but also blind."
This. In a more academic-y way Jonathan Haidt touched on this point with moral foundations theory. Not only is progressive morality not inarguable, but it constitutes one potential foundation. To the extent that progressives don't appreciate this and understand the other foundations and how voters' beliefs may draw from those foundations, the left is bound to be further marginalized in American society.
“No humility, no self-awareness, and no sense that another way of looking at the world is valid: this won’t be an easy trap to get out of. The tendency of progressive advocates to present their opinions as inarguable moral demands and to use culture as a bludgeon to enforce those demands has left them in a head-in-the-clouds position - that is, elevated, but also blind.”
You nailed it in this closing paragraph. There will always be crazies on both sides. Always. But there’s this big middle ground that ebbs and flows over time. Just as with financial markets, the pendulum can swing too far and that ultimately has consequences. These advocates, of which the climate cult would be an example, respect no middle ground. They just want more and more. We know better, and you will like it.
I keep coming back to the moment I felt Trump had a really decent chance to win. The McDonalds thing was close to perfect as a campaign tool. He was funny, engaging, polite. It was simply great politics. That’s what you’re supposed to do in that situation. It’s a time honored tradition. The outrage afterwards from the left was predictable, as they knew she couldn’t pull off the same stunt. That middle ground that I mentioned in the previous paragraph likes to see a candidate lean into a car with a bag of fries and say “Nice looking family. It’s not rocket science.
Getting the lads back will require the Democrats to address some of the issues highlighted below:
If you have seen this post before just consider it my pamphlet. Thomas Paine printed a hundred thousand copies of his pamphlet Common Sense so many people could be aware of his wisdom. Consider my repeated posts just my way of spreading my wisdom. It would be unpatriotic to believe otherwise. 😎
After the election the Democratic Party (my party) must rethink many of its policies as it ponders its future.
To be entrusted with power again Democrats must start listening to the concerns of the working class for a change. As a lifelong moderate Democrat I share their disdain for many of the insane positions advocated by my party. We are no longer the patriotic, sensible party of FDR and JFK.
Democrat politicians defy biology by believing that men can actually become women and belong in women’s sports, rest rooms, locker rooms and prisons and that children should be mutilated in pursuit of the impossible.
They believe borders should be open to millions of illegals which undermines workers’ wages and the affordability of housing when we can’t house our own citizens.
They discriminate against whites, Asians and men in a futile effort to counter past discrimination against others and undermine our economy by abandoning merit selection of students and employees.
Democratic mayors allow homelessness to destroy our beautiful cities because they won't say no to destructive behavior. No, you can’t camp in our city. No, you can’t shit in our streets. No, you can’t shoot up and leave your used needles everywhere. Many of our prosecutors will not take action against shoplifting unless a $1000 of goods are stolen leading to gangs destroying retail stores. They release criminals without bail to commit more crimes.
The average voter knows this is happening and outright reject our party. Enough.
The outcome of this inevitable failure to win back men could be that they come to understand men better than any of their pet groups, and gain a better understanding of men than any left-leaning academic work could produce.
A more likely outcome is that they stereotype men in very bad ways.
Pretty good irony eh? What men want is to be free to want what we want, like what we like, be who we are. While I agree with your piece and believe it to be factually and symbolically true, it is staggeringly rich to note that what “we” ( I’m a bloke) want is agency and, more importantly, for society to be into that.
Our sex has had that for, umm, check notes, all of human history. The times where we didn’t have that is where we were peasants in feudal societies run mostly by highly agentic men living out their best-ruling-class-life.
Maybe we’re just more at ease being macro-managed by a proper boss man? I’ll sleep at night knowing the king is someone I can be at least aspirationally: free.
The truth though is that even those peasants had more freedom in their day-to-day lives than we do. At least, freedom from a centralized authority. Society and family placed much stricter bonds on people in times past, whereas government (what little there was) placed much less.
They should make a great ape “feel seen” and see how it goes for them. Also, who’s not an American these days. I guess there are some uncontacted tribes.
For me, it's very simple. The leftist position is always one of group think. Group think diminishes the individual -- and by extension assumes/assigns a lack of agency to the individual.
No leftist is a king in his own house/ castle -- because he's a dependent, weak minded person.
To be a leftist is to surrender your agency to the state. Who the hell wants to do that?! Isn't that why people grow up and move out of their parent's house -- to be on their own?
Men want to strive and see of they can make it -- not have their lives dictated to them by a bunch of effeminate cucks.
Very good. Conor is right that the dems are in deeper than they realize. It’s hard to start to attract men back when you believe they’re actually the problem (especially white men; especially straight white men). Everyone is aware that the dems are trying a different message not because they are sincere in changing their minds but because they are wanting to regain power. Every man smells this and it stinks. Losing men is the natural outcome of university educations in which you can’t gain a diploma without passing through class after class where it is always made clear that men (particularly white, straight men) are the cause of roughly 90% of all that is wrong with human history. I say this as a man who has never voted GOP at any level in my life and also possesses graduate degrees in the humanities. You will need a different secular theodicy to emerge than the one presently embedded in academia in which men (and again, particularly straight white men) are the reason why evil exists in the world. A good place to start is by first admitting this is, in fact, a secular theodicy.
To say the Dems haven’t processed the loss would presume they were interested in an explanation where they made core mistakes. They are not interested in this.
Is was in the left once, and talking to another man who is currently on the left, he came back to the metaphor of a scale that’s unbalanced and the belief that left wing frames, both in policy and in attitude, were putting pressure on one side of a scale to level it out.
There’s plenty of justification for it, as the stats all say men occupy the positions of real power and can be presumed to have advantages. The problem is that no one in the left has really questioned this frame in a long time. I assume that when this essay talks about how the Trump campaign accepted aspects of progressive framing, this is what you meant.
And I don’t know. The frame has been accepted in some ways, but also assumes things about competition and identity that I think a lot of men reject. There’s a lot to go over here in what the goals and rational expectations of the system are, but the question of unequal power is either the question that will make or break the left’s response, or the question that will provide the heaviest smoke as they try to respond. I don’t think the left gets why it’s so dangerous, their default reaction to to push aside the meta to save face, and there’s still a tone where emotional management of men as a problem demographic is way more prevalent than than any real interest in finding different ways to look at how society works.
Honestly, if men were just another political interest group the Dems had to placate, this would be radically easier and it might not have happened at all. But there are zero sum aspects to this, both in policy and in culture, where they will not be able to talk to all groups at the same time. Men are not friendly to the ultimate results of leftist social change and they fundamentally disagree with the frame in more and more cases, and at times I think you got this, while other times you didn’t. I see this a lot with how the internal conversation has been going.
John Stewart Liebovitz is so much yesterdays man. Shrugging to camera, sniggering pop eyed 👀 look asides, he should have stayed retired. I mention his correct name as Trump uses it to annoy Stewart who like most lefties is very thin skinned. DJT asks faux innocently what's wrong with your real name, my grandkids are Kushners, no big deal.
The Fallons, Kimmels. Seths, Col-bears, Stewart make the "left" feel good and righteous about themselves, but are preaching to the converted. They have learned nothing, nothing at all.
Not mentioned problem:Professional feminism, with its anti-male bigotry, is a pillar of the parties of the left. To get in bed with those harpies requires castration, or at least mental castration. Trump is a lot of things, but he is not castrated.
Fantastic writing Conor. However, I don't necessarily see it as a female/male perspective problem, (although probably more men do want autonomy). I see it more as a general infantalization of society, where we are all encouraged to sit back and let Mammy/Daddy/The Government do stuff for us. It robs us of agency in our own lives.
It's a problem of scale, and Ivan Ilich talked about this back in the 1970s, the bigger a society gets, the more it is inclined to relegate citizens to the role of passive consumers. People (and particularly men) don't like this. We want to be authors of our own lives, not an audience for some Very Clever People to show us all how to Do Life Properly and grateful for some pablum on Be Kind to Everyone, whilst struggling to feed our families.
I've just written a piece on Ivan Illich's ideas around energy, it's high time his ideas came back into the mainstream imo. Keep up the good work!
Thanks. I agree it’s not a male female issue but there has been a lot of back and forth post-US elections on the left/ liberal/ progressive disconnect with men, so I wanted to look at it through that lens and point out some factors I felt they were missing
But that's a weird, and incorrect, lens. The much clearer lens is that the liberal position(s) is no longer liberal, and only Left(ist). Which, in turn, is destructive to any Liberal order. There is no 'alt-right pipeline' and other unholys seducing boys and men....there is a return to common sense and critical thinking, which exposes the idiocy and dangers of illiberal Leftism.
And you did. ;)
Thanks for writing this, with which I pretty much entirely agree.
"Trump is a success because he was the embodiment of an individual imposing himself on the world, as embodied by a system that hates you, rather than the other way round. Quite a lot of men instinctively like that, and by definition you cannot beat it with more social programmes or the promise of a tear-filled struggle session."
This passage reminds me of an incident at an academic music conference in 2017. I attended a panel on music in political campaigns in which the panelists—all liberal, left-leaning academics—were remarking bewilderingly on Trump's use of the Rolling Stones' song, "You Can't Always Get What You Want" during his 2016 campaign rallies. They could not understand why he would use it or what it meant.
As someone who has always leaned conservative, despite many years of liberal indoctrination, it was quite obvious, so I put up my hand and told them. The point was in the title and chorus of the song: that you can't always get what you want; that politics and governments aren't about just giving people what they want as liberals like to believe. Trump's message was one of strength and self-assertion, in marked contrast to that of Hillary Clinton and later Kamala Harris, for whom the purpose of government is to give you things in order to make life easier, which for many (if not most) men, and many women as well, is a horrifying possibility. This was a point Dostoevsky made in the 1850s in Notes from Underground, which these all-too-proud academics should have understood:
"And why are you so firmly, so triumphantly, convinced that only the normal and the positive—in other words, only what is conducive to welfare—is for the advantage of man? Is not reason in error as regards advantage? Does not man, perhaps, love something besides well-being? Perhaps he is just as fond of suffering? Perhaps suffering is just as great a benefit to him as well-being? Man is sometimes extraordinarily, passionately, in love with suffering, and that is a fact. There is no need to appeal to universal history to prove that; only ask yourself, if you are a man and have lived at all."
Great comment thank you
I had this very conversation a month ago, with a University of Chicago philosophy undergrad who brought it up to me. Your note helps me better understand what he was saying to me.
“You know what you need more of, Anon? More one-on-one female experts in the Longhouse to tell you weekly to man up or trans up.” - DNC
I also recognize this dynamic in the 2016 Democratic party primary with campaign messaging and young people. Contrary to the stereotype, Sanders's youth appeal was never about the "free stuff." I remember how the Clinton 2016 campaign website's page for young people assumed the target audience was naïve, neurotic, afraid of the future, and needed a bunch of stuff done for (to?) them. Meanwhile, the Sanders 2016 campaign truly had their finger on the pulse, that young people simply wanted to have the same economic opportunities that their parents' generation had. And before that, on the right, Ron Paul's relative popularity with young people was about taking them seriously, running on a restoration of civil liberties versus the establishment Republican nanny state of the Patriot Act.
I’m not the biggest Sanders fan but I agree mostly. He made his campaign about this noble fight of regular people against the system, rather then individual sects of grievance-mongers to be satisfied in turn
This is just a strange re-alignment overall. Right and Left, at least the traditional definitions of them, are no longer the most important differences. It's something more like centralization versus resistance to centralization? See the Assisted Dying law in the UK... from what I can see, it had bipartisan support AND bipartisan opposition.
I read somewhere on Substack that it looks like we're getting another change in the polarity of the parties like what happened with the Southern Strategy. It feels true to me, as it's clear the Democrats are now the party of the establishment and the Republicans, because of Trump usurping them, is now the anti-establishment party.
Which is crazy talk to anyone on the Left because they view "the establishment" as straight white christian cis (etc) males and anyone foolishly aligning themselves with such monsters (aka me). But the majority of voters now view "the establishment" as the State and the people and institutions aligned with the State.
Probably this re-alignment is happening because while the Republicans used to be as Statist as the Democrats but with some mild libertarian rhetoric, now they're not. Trump's awful in many, many ways but he is for sure aligned against the ever-suffocating, ever-expanding State.
See, no self-respecting old-school leftist would define “the establishment” as a spiritual conspiracy of everyday people who continue to somehow perpetuate various “isms” by not having the correct sort of consciousness. Old-school leftists are grounded in the real world and material concerns and “the establishment” however it’s defined would have to be something concrete, like state and corporate power, the military-industrial complex, and so on.
The scam feels very obvious when you don’t believe in it: the scary power structure is just everyday life and your non-woke neighbors who have the wrong worldview. And the only thing that can save you from the scary postmodern power structure is — conveniently — for the actual power structure, the government, etc., to censor and suppress your neighbors.
And just to show how different things are now: you can look up old clips of Fox News media blackout of Ron Paul during the 2008 and 2012 primaries, including blatantly skipping over his name when he was a runner-up in at least one state.
"No humility, no self-awareness, and no sense that another way of looking at the world is valid: this won’t be an easy trap to get out of. The tendency of progressive advocates to present their opinions as inarguable moral demands and to use culture as a bludgeon to enforce those demands has left them in a head-in-the-clouds position - that is, elevated, but also blind."
This. In a more academic-y way Jonathan Haidt touched on this point with moral foundations theory. Not only is progressive morality not inarguable, but it constitutes one potential foundation. To the extent that progressives don't appreciate this and understand the other foundations and how voters' beliefs may draw from those foundations, the left is bound to be further marginalized in American society.
“No humility, no self-awareness, and no sense that another way of looking at the world is valid: this won’t be an easy trap to get out of. The tendency of progressive advocates to present their opinions as inarguable moral demands and to use culture as a bludgeon to enforce those demands has left them in a head-in-the-clouds position - that is, elevated, but also blind.”
You nailed it in this closing paragraph. There will always be crazies on both sides. Always. But there’s this big middle ground that ebbs and flows over time. Just as with financial markets, the pendulum can swing too far and that ultimately has consequences. These advocates, of which the climate cult would be an example, respect no middle ground. They just want more and more. We know better, and you will like it.
I keep coming back to the moment I felt Trump had a really decent chance to win. The McDonalds thing was close to perfect as a campaign tool. He was funny, engaging, polite. It was simply great politics. That’s what you’re supposed to do in that situation. It’s a time honored tradition. The outrage afterwards from the left was predictable, as they knew she couldn’t pull off the same stunt. That middle ground that I mentioned in the previous paragraph likes to see a candidate lean into a car with a bag of fries and say “Nice looking family. It’s not rocket science.
Good post!
Thanks Douglas
Getting the lads back will require the Democrats to address some of the issues highlighted below:
If you have seen this post before just consider it my pamphlet. Thomas Paine printed a hundred thousand copies of his pamphlet Common Sense so many people could be aware of his wisdom. Consider my repeated posts just my way of spreading my wisdom. It would be unpatriotic to believe otherwise. 😎
After the election the Democratic Party (my party) must rethink many of its policies as it ponders its future.
To be entrusted with power again Democrats must start listening to the concerns of the working class for a change. As a lifelong moderate Democrat I share their disdain for many of the insane positions advocated by my party. We are no longer the patriotic, sensible party of FDR and JFK.
Democrat politicians defy biology by believing that men can actually become women and belong in women’s sports, rest rooms, locker rooms and prisons and that children should be mutilated in pursuit of the impossible.
They believe borders should be open to millions of illegals which undermines workers’ wages and the affordability of housing when we can’t house our own citizens.
They discriminate against whites, Asians and men in a futile effort to counter past discrimination against others and undermine our economy by abandoning merit selection of students and employees.
Democratic mayors allow homelessness to destroy our beautiful cities because they won't say no to destructive behavior. No, you can’t camp in our city. No, you can’t shit in our streets. No, you can’t shoot up and leave your used needles everywhere. Many of our prosecutors will not take action against shoplifting unless a $1000 of goods are stolen leading to gangs destroying retail stores. They release criminals without bail to commit more crimes.
The average voter knows this is happening and outright reject our party. Enough.
Excellent comment.
The outcome of this inevitable failure to win back men could be that they come to understand men better than any of their pet groups, and gain a better understanding of men than any left-leaning academic work could produce.
A more likely outcome is that they stereotype men in very bad ways.
Pretty good irony eh? What men want is to be free to want what we want, like what we like, be who we are. While I agree with your piece and believe it to be factually and symbolically true, it is staggeringly rich to note that what “we” ( I’m a bloke) want is agency and, more importantly, for society to be into that.
Our sex has had that for, umm, check notes, all of human history. The times where we didn’t have that is where we were peasants in feudal societies run mostly by highly agentic men living out their best-ruling-class-life.
Maybe we’re just more at ease being macro-managed by a proper boss man? I’ll sleep at night knowing the king is someone I can be at least aspirationally: free.
The truth though is that even those peasants had more freedom in their day-to-day lives than we do. At least, freedom from a centralized authority. Society and family placed much stricter bonds on people in times past, whereas government (what little there was) placed much less.
They should make a great ape “feel seen” and see how it goes for them. Also, who’s not an American these days. I guess there are some uncontacted tribes.
For me, it's very simple. The leftist position is always one of group think. Group think diminishes the individual -- and by extension assumes/assigns a lack of agency to the individual.
No leftist is a king in his own house/ castle -- because he's a dependent, weak minded person.
To be a leftist is to surrender your agency to the state. Who the hell wants to do that?! Isn't that why people grow up and move out of their parent's house -- to be on their own?
Men want to strive and see of they can make it -- not have their lives dictated to them by a bunch of effeminate cucks.
Very good. Conor is right that the dems are in deeper than they realize. It’s hard to start to attract men back when you believe they’re actually the problem (especially white men; especially straight white men). Everyone is aware that the dems are trying a different message not because they are sincere in changing their minds but because they are wanting to regain power. Every man smells this and it stinks. Losing men is the natural outcome of university educations in which you can’t gain a diploma without passing through class after class where it is always made clear that men (particularly white, straight men) are the cause of roughly 90% of all that is wrong with human history. I say this as a man who has never voted GOP at any level in my life and also possesses graduate degrees in the humanities. You will need a different secular theodicy to emerge than the one presently embedded in academia in which men (and again, particularly straight white men) are the reason why evil exists in the world. A good place to start is by first admitting this is, in fact, a secular theodicy.
To say the Dems haven’t processed the loss would presume they were interested in an explanation where they made core mistakes. They are not interested in this.
Is was in the left once, and talking to another man who is currently on the left, he came back to the metaphor of a scale that’s unbalanced and the belief that left wing frames, both in policy and in attitude, were putting pressure on one side of a scale to level it out.
There’s plenty of justification for it, as the stats all say men occupy the positions of real power and can be presumed to have advantages. The problem is that no one in the left has really questioned this frame in a long time. I assume that when this essay talks about how the Trump campaign accepted aspects of progressive framing, this is what you meant.
And I don’t know. The frame has been accepted in some ways, but also assumes things about competition and identity that I think a lot of men reject. There’s a lot to go over here in what the goals and rational expectations of the system are, but the question of unequal power is either the question that will make or break the left’s response, or the question that will provide the heaviest smoke as they try to respond. I don’t think the left gets why it’s so dangerous, their default reaction to to push aside the meta to save face, and there’s still a tone where emotional management of men as a problem demographic is way more prevalent than than any real interest in finding different ways to look at how society works.
Honestly, if men were just another political interest group the Dems had to placate, this would be radically easier and it might not have happened at all. But there are zero sum aspects to this, both in policy and in culture, where they will not be able to talk to all groups at the same time. Men are not friendly to the ultimate results of leftist social change and they fundamentally disagree with the frame in more and more cases, and at times I think you got this, while other times you didn’t. I see this a lot with how the internal conversation has been going.
John Stewart Liebovitz is so much yesterdays man. Shrugging to camera, sniggering pop eyed 👀 look asides, he should have stayed retired. I mention his correct name as Trump uses it to annoy Stewart who like most lefties is very thin skinned. DJT asks faux innocently what's wrong with your real name, my grandkids are Kushners, no big deal.
The Fallons, Kimmels. Seths, Col-bears, Stewart make the "left" feel good and righteous about themselves, but are preaching to the converted. They have learned nothing, nothing at all.
Not mentioned problem:Professional feminism, with its anti-male bigotry, is a pillar of the parties of the left. To get in bed with those harpies requires castration, or at least mental castration. Trump is a lot of things, but he is not castrated.
The Democrats hire consultants to teach them how to fake authenticity. Fake authenticity.