"If we restrict our sample to men and women under 40, the gaps tend to be even smaller and again, abortion is the only issue on which men and women differ significantly: "
I might be reading the graph wrong, but for the graph depicting 2024 sentiment for folks under 40, doesn't illegal immigration and climate change show equal more significant gaps than abortion?
the answer absolutely lies in culture...One hypothesis is that many younger men, especially have lacked any kind of male role model per prior generations (which were more socially connected) due to the widespread phenom of broken homes in the middle and working classes and so they gravitate to a strong man...weak families is a perfect setup for authoritarian male candidates preying on male adults with caricatured views of masculinity.
"So any gender gap in partisan preferences must have other roots".
Sadly, the authors failed to see the elephant in the room: the Democrats have already announced that they serve women, but not men. Self-resepcting men will not vote for politicians and Democrats that refuse to serve them.
Nice article that encourages thinking and analysis. I agree with some of the other commenters that the emerging differences are cultural and economic. Young men are no longer attending college as much as women and this is creating some ideological shifts and openings. Men are also more likely to be single now and I wonder at the impact of men who have gone their own way (MGTOW) and the rise of Only Fans and other platforms in which men are increasingly engaging with women as consumers/subscribers.
MGTOW and Red Pill are the antidotes to simping for women by being Only Fans consumers. And, take a look at the "who we serve" page on Democrats.org. They state that they serve women, but not men.
MGTOW and Redpill are the inheritors of the PUA community - grifters more interested in exploiting boys and men than helping them in any meaningful way.
One of the ways you can tell that they are grifters is that they’re not doing any sort of organizing for building political or cultural power that would *actually change policy* in favor of boys and men.
Get back to me when the Andrew Tates of the world start running for political office in the United States - though I know that’s hard when you’re hiding in Romania.
Where I’m from, masculinity is a force for enriching other others, not just the self. I have yet to see anyone in MGTOW & RedPill communities act in anyone’s interest other than their own. I have yet to see them build meaningful political and policy based movements.
I would be curious where you are from but would guess somewhere in Europe, potentially Nordic country. The externalities may be the source of enriching others but the self is also enriched. When you are enriching others by working harder but everyone is enriched and you are not, then something is wrong. Most Europeans don't understand the plight of average men in the U.S.. men in the U.S are primarily working for the govt, for women or for minorities. At some point these men ask themselves what about me?
In this video, Terrence Popp describes the tools he used to prevent him from committing suicide. He describes how 500 men wrote to him to thank him for preventing their suicides, as well. In case you were not aware of it, divorce statistically increases a man's risk of suicide eight times.
A men's advocay organization is preparing to sue the State of California for their refusal to set up a comparable commission on the status of men.
NCFM has already sued the Selective Service System for it's obvious discrimination against men. It won a toothless vicy\tory, so they will go back and launch another battle against them.
Keep in mind that women's organizations receive government support. Men's advocacy organziations are supported by private donations. If you are wondering why meaningful political moves are few and far between, that is why.
Genuinely think this divergence is cultural and not policy related. It isn't about the policies and leanings of one party or another, it's about the larger cultural context they exist in and how they communicate and reach out to (or push away) each gender. You'll hear the right talk about Democrats as the party of DEI and the HRification of society. These aren't political parties anymore. They're cultural forces.
This is marxism. Democrats realised that there were more women than men and looked to polarized women. They did not counted with the polarization of men. Gender has proven to be stronger than class, and the gender divide will be stronger than class divide.
This is not Marxism. Please stop with that. Marxism believes in the elimination of class not the dividing and highlighting it. Just be a fox and others scream “Communism” or “Marxist” doesn’t mean they know what they are talking about. I actually encourage you to read Marx and Engles. Rather than rely on people using it as a boogie man. The Democrats aren’t Marxist. If they were it wouldn’t be this DEI garbage. They also would be much more accelerationist
Exactly. Look at the "who we serve" page on Democrats.org. They state that they serve women, but not men (and all races and ethnicities EXCEPT for White people.)
Or the programme of Kemala. She mentions women 10 times and men 0. It is unbelievable that any man vote for the Democrats. Voting for them IS the most stupid thing you can do as a man.
Another issue that few people discuss, but one that resonates with men, particularly men of military age, is that of matters of war and peace.
Many military age men are concerned about the possibility of a serious military conflict which could potentially involve a draft. Those men see a Trump/Vance administration as one less likely to involve such a conflict, or if it does, that it will end relatively quickly and will involve minimal losses on our part.
Furthermore, a Trump/Vance administration would be one in which serious military conflict is less likely to occur because such an administration projects strength. Note that there were no new wars during the last Trump administration, and no, I don’t think it was because Trump was “buddies” with tough guy leaders like Putin and Kim Jong Un, but rather, Trump approached them as business rivals—I’m willing to talk to you, but just as willing to cream you. Plus, Trump is not someone you want to cross—ask General Soleimani. Whereas the Biden/Harris administration projected weakness, or worse, big talk but little or no action.
A similar dynamic played out in 2008 in which many military age men didn’t support McCain because they worried that he would expand the Iraq War and possibly start a war with Iran.
Most people don't work out a consistent approach to policy. It really is more about vibes, and the vibes on the left and in the Democratic Party are not only consistently anti-male, but they're actively revolting or cringe to men, and especially young men, in the same way that a truly lame school assembly about the dangers of drugs was revolting when you were in high school. You're getting preached at when you'd rather be outside doing something fun and possibly dangerous, the speaker is a middle-aged white woman who lamely tries to use slang but clearly was never cool enough to know the slang from when she was a teenager, and the whole auditorium oozes a schmalzy, syrupy do-gooderism that makes you actively want to set the place on fire. As a man, you realize that a permanent Democratic majority would mean being chained to your seat in this auditorium forever. The walls will be painted pastel colors. You'll vote for *anything* other than this.
I get it, but if forced to choose between the suffocating virtue of Democrats and the cruelty and hate that the Republicans gave us at the Madison Square Garden Rally I don’t know how one picks the latter. Good, no matter how obnoxiously expressed, is better than evil.
Because it's something that's so easily corrected that the fact that it's not corrected allows men to form the assumption that the Democrats don't want to correct it. It means that Democrats must think men deserve to be talked to like that and that they expect men to understand and agree that they deserve to be constantly matronized. In other words, there is an implicit idea communicated that Democrats think that men are dangerous scumbags. It's the same vibe that has kept middle class black people from voting even for moderate Republicans, who they might agree with on social issues and economic policy, for 60 years.
Even if you agree with someone on policy, if you believe they actively hate you, it's perfectly rational not to vote for them.
I think you are conflating “progressivism” as a broader cultural entity and the Democratic Party as an institution. Sarah Jeong doesn’t work for the Democratic Party.
Frankly, I can’t think of what more the Harris campaign could have done to moderate on culture war issues. Take the win!
Go to the "who we serve" page of Democrats.org. It mentions that the Democrats serve women, but not men. That's a loss, not a win. And, Harris just announced that women that vote Republicans do so because theur husbands have forced them to do so. Patronizing to women , and insulting to men.
2. Given the number of women who are in abusive marriages (or just married to thoughtless idiots), it's enough to make a demographic worth going after. A sad fact, but one none the less.
3. It's really not a good look when married men get pissed about it. It's basically admitting that you're such a hostile and threatening blowhard that you're incapable of having a good enough relationship with your wife to trust that you have the same values or at the very least can tolerate political disagreement. In other words, if you're insulted by the ad as a man, it's probably because it hits a bit close to home.
You are obviously unaware of the research that has found that women batter men as often as the converse. That research goes back to the work of Suzanne Steinmetz, Murray Straus and Richard Gelles, back in the 1970s. Feminists made death threats against the three to try to silence them. Here is a compendium of the research:
Back in the 90s, Biden wrote the Violence Against Women Act, which ignores female-on-male domestic violence and the fact that men are violent crime victims 2 times more often than women. Men tried to present the evidence of equal perpetration of DV between the sexes during VAWA public hearings, but were told to shut up. At the same time, the Women's Health Act was passed, which violated also violates the Equal Protection Clause rights of men. As a result, there is far more funding for breast cancer than prostate cancer. Think about that at your next annual physical.
Unfortunately, I have not seen Richard mention facts like these that feminists don't want to hear.
The Man Enough ad was something that was Dem approved and it made most men want to stick a fork into their eyeballs. Also, don't insult me by claiming that the Dems don't stand for broad cultural progressivism. I agree with them on 75% of it and will probably vote for them this time and even I absolutely despise them.
In terms of cultural moderation, as long as we are talking about it, the mainstream progressive position on trans issues comes off as extreme to about 70% of the country. I don't particularly care, no skin off my nose, but the ads Trump is running on the subject are helping him.
The Democrats haven't lifted a finger to help men in decades, and that is the case now, too (bysaving that they serve women but not men). I don't vote for people and political parties that tell men to buzz off.
Interesting research, and very helpful. As an anthropologist, I have had the suspicion that the political gap was cultural (it is my field, after all), but these data help to make the case, for sure. There are sociological and anthropological sources out there that are exploring this. Men's identity used to be founded, in part, on a hierarchical understanding of gender, bolstered by the exclusion of women from higher paying work. The economic hierarchy is disappearing as a) more women enter the higher-paying fields that were formerly restricted for them, b) "male" work available to those without college education (e.g., union work in factories) is increasingly sent off-shore chasing lower wages and fewer environmental regulations, and c) incomes outside the top 10% fail to grow at the rate of inflation.
Just as some politicians have promised reactionary economic policies (e.g., bringing back the coal industry), so too are some promising a reactionary cultural shift to a time of established patriarchy and sexism. Clearly it's finding its audience (as many of the comments here demonstrate!) But like anti-immigrant rhetoric, that seems a short-term strategy in the face of longer-term social/cultural shifts. The better response, I would argue, would be a shift in masculine identity that does not require economic dominance/superiority to women, but is, as you've argued elsewhere, rooted in social provision, relationships, and masculine forms of emotional-social provision. I think there are glimmers of this shift, but it won't become normative so long as it remains partisan.
I have always been somewhat gender non-conforming and atypical - by which I mean not caring about the prescribed roles and traits, and thus free to adopt what resonates for me from either palette, rather than slavishly stereotypical OR oppositional and required to break every stereotype. (Neither of which is freedom to be).
However, I really don't understand what concrete concepts you reference with your abstract terminology. It could mean a lot of quite different things, with different implications.
I would be interested in how a masculine identity "rooted in social provision, relationships, and masculine forms of emotional-social provision" would look, and how it would differ from feminine identity "rooted in social provision, relationships, and feminine forms of emotional-social provision"? What's the difference between "social provision" and "emotional-social provision"? Could you describe "masculine" vs "feminine" forms of emotional-social provisioning?
As an anthropologist who has presumably studied sex roles in many cultures at least to some degree whether or not it's your specialization, do you think that there is any positive social benefit in having differences in the identities of males and females, or should the goal be that ALL concepts of masculinity (and femininity) be abolished?
While I personally have been skeptical of prescriptive sex roles, I can nevertheless understand the men who perceive progressive's concept of "good masculinity" as being more like imposing feminine values on them (the equivalent of men unilaterally deciding what acceptable femininity consists of). I can understand why the former would not be attractive to humans who happen to be male, just as I understand why unilaterally male-imposed restrictions on "good femininity" would be unattractive to humans who happen to be female.
To counter that perception that "men should be whatever women want them to be", I'm looking for what you think are "proper" traits of masculinity but not femininity, in more concrete terms than "emotional-social provision" (as a separate item from "social provision" apparently).
"I would be interested in how a masculine identity "rooted in social provision, relationships, and masculine forms of emotional-social provision" would look, and how it would differ from feminine identity "rooted in social provision, relationships, and feminine forms of emotional-social provision"? What's the difference between "social provision" and "emotional-social provision"? Could you describe "masculine" vs "feminine" forms of emotional-social provisioning?"
Yes, I think these can all be described, but only in context. There are not, of course, generic/non-culturally-specific forms of masculinity or femininity.
I should distinguish between "emotional provisioning" and "social provisioning" although there is significant overlap, hence the "emotional-social" thing I threw in there. What I mean by social is friendship, companionship, mentorship, and other forms of social connection. What I mean by "emotional" is the provision of psychological support, encouragement, sympathy, and expressions of care. Obviously, these overlap in the real world quite a bit, but I do think they're distinct.
what do masculine forms look like vs. feminine forms? Again, give me a context to talk about. I think different generations, to say nothing of national/ethnic/racial/cultural groups have different expecations and expressions of these as feminine and masculine, and even then they are contested and variable.
But I definitely agree that differences between male/female forms of social-cultural expression are both universally human and a social good. (And, from my POV, a spiritual good as well.) And having gendered social expressions is not necessarily the same thing as "sex roles" or "gender roles" which almost always has an economic and political dimension. So I think we can have concepts/practices of masculinity and femininity without (rigid) sex roles as such.
> I think these can all be described, but only in context.
So a behavior which you would consider proper masculinity among the Inca in 1300 might be toxic masculinity in the US today, and vice versa?
Let's assume the context is the US around the year 2024. Could you give some answers to the questions I asked, in that context? In the current context of cultural upheaval, many men (especially young ones) want to know what they are asked to be, what is an acceptable or praiseworthy form of gender expression for males (specifically in contrast to females, rather than universal positive traits). How would you answer that (see my questions quoted at the start of your response), trying to avoid abstractions whose referent is unclear. Giving some examples,, if possible.
How would you advise young men to find a masculine identity which is NOT just "be just like women instead of men" (as some prescriptions are perceived by young men)?
> I definitely agree that differences between male/female forms of social-cultural expression are both universally human and a social good. (And, from my POV, a spiritual good as well.)
OK, thanks. (I was not actually stating an opinion about that, to be agreed upon or not, as much as asking an open question to learn from, given your field of expertise).
> And having gendered social expressions is not necessarily the same thing as "sex roles" or "gender roles" which almost always has an economic and political dimension.
So do you see things like wearing earrings or being into football games as "gendered expression", versus "sex roles", because they don't have large enough economic or political dimension to be a "role"? Would you see the predominance of females in childcare and early teaching as more of "sex role" based on a social stereotype of their being more nurturing, as a "sex role"?
> I think we can have concepts/practices of masculinity and femininity without (rigid) sex roles as such.
OK, I would love to hear more specifics of what you think would be acceptable implementations of that. And yes, I think we both agree that rigid roles are a problem. What are some examples of concepts/practices of masculinity and femininity without sex roles which you would support for contemporary society?
I have genuine curiosity about this, I'm not just trying to argue to be right. I am not just trying to sort out my identity at my age, but I have a lot of sympathy for the confusing messages young people of both sexes are getting today, and I would like to hear some clarity about what you think they should be told about appropriate masculinity. Just criticizing them for being "the wrong kind of masculine" is not enough, nor are cringe messages which boil down to "act like a woman would"; there needs to be more concrete and solid vision of a positive path if we want positive change rather than just dysfunctional self-hatred and confusion.
OK. I'm basically talking about things like being a little league coach are a kind of masculine emotional and/or social provisioning. Of course, women can do that, too, but they would, likely, do it differently than most men would. How "should" a man be a little league coach? He should do it the way that feels right to him and helps the kids. He can be "tough" and "manly" in that role to whatever degree feels normal for him and is helpful for the kids to develop emotionally, physically, athletically. He could also be soft-spoken, emotionally responsive and nurturing. The point is that we need to see the work he does as properly masculine, not simply (or only) because of how he does it, but because of what he is doing. By going out an serving as a kind of surrogate father for kids, in this case. That's what coaches, and mentors, have long done.
If men, young or otherwise, are looking for ways to be in society, I would say: Be Productive. And I don't mean economically productive, I mean socially and emotionally productive. How? Do it however feels good for you as a man, and let's call that good masculine behavior.
Reeves has a couple posts that actually circle around what I'm getting at here where he's written in some depth about "relational masculinity." I don't see anyone (least of all me) criticizing someone for being the "wrong kind of masculine." So long as the expressions of masculinity are having positive relational effects, then cool.
“There’s no easy answer to the question of why the political gender gap seems to be widening. But it does seem to lie more in the realm of culture than policy.” Interesting article, but I was hoping you would try to speculate a little more on some plausible hypothesis.
They list lots of items for "who they serve". It's an intersectional identity framing, and they are positioning themselves to serve the "oppressed" end of each identity bifurcation. So they serve LGBTQIA+ males, or African-American males, who get to be on the oppressed side because of that attribute and thus deserve service from Democrats.
But I see your point that if we consider only sex and not other intersectional identities, the Democratic platform serves women just for being women, but not men just for being men; men need to qualify under some other identity group to matter. They do serve trans men, for example, just for being trans men.
Yes, basically we serve females and people that lean less traditionally masculine. Even Richard Reeves noted the same issue on a show recently. Even you say we don't serve you, while would they vote for you.
The gender gap pay issue has been used to fund cheaper labor. No new jobs were made for women. They just replaced the expendable human resources for a cheaper price because they will accept less and do more. Men were, at some capacity, trying to intimidate the work force to get fair pay 401k retirement health care. And looks what happens when they replaced the men in the workforce? Lower pay, larger pay gaps between wealthy and middle class. Terrible retirement. People getting pennies in the tech industry to fund "ai" companies to make billions? People just began setting the bar lower and willing to take the fucking with no lube and a rusty pole in the ass made in some Midwest town with nothing left except the people you claim to be helping. This ideal is so disconnected. This is what we call soft masculinity. Even the numbers of women jobs are starting to go down. Now with the tech industry with little to no customer service. Goes what ladies. Your kind of fucking it up and being used because of your caring nature. Eventually people have to say fuck you because it's coming no matter what. People willing to accept less, new workers who are bilingual and can do the job a little less better than the previous for much less.
The gap IS simple: as a man, you CANNOT vote for Democrats, the party that has been insulting you, bolstering women Over men and blaming men for his "toxic masculinity". While promoting the "Future is Female", instituting female affirmative action to the expense of men.
We are not against women progress, we are against a party that aligns with one gender to the expense of the other.
Kemala dont even mention males innher programme, but she mentions females 10 times.
And now they are NOT concerned about males, but about males voting Trump.
YES. WE ARE VOTING TRUMP. And future Will be male. Too.
PR, my dear, generically-named, no profile pic, 100 day old account:
In US English, the word is “program”.
If you are real and not just one of the many political agents floating around Substack right now, please know that you deserve a better informational diet than what you’re on. You need strategy and substance; not the empty calories of conflict.
Whether you’re real or not: I see you, and I’m not alone.
I have explained several times here, I am not from the US. If the only criticism you can do on my comment is that I am using Oxford English instead of American one... Well, perhaps my comment was more accrurate than I even expected.
(Btw if you lean left, it is a neocolonialist and American privilege to discualify the wrong use of English by a non-native speaker).
Happy to continue this productive discussion if you are prepared to go beyond linguistics... We may have more in common than you think.
In the meantime, vote well. Vote wise. Vote for Trump.
Excellent analysis. The roots may lay in your last sentence "it does seem to lie more in the realm of culture than policy." To the extent men and women have their own cultures or roles there is a gap between them. Many young men are also in opposition to this gap closing and identify more with parties and policies that aren't hostile to their identity. How can politics make more room for both men and women? That is especially important as men's and women's roles continue to evolve.
Tell that to the Democratic Party. On the "who we serve" page of Democrats.org, they mention that they serve women, but not men. How the author could have missed this elepgant in the room is beyond comprehension.
Funny thing - some men think abortion is not an issue for them until they realize they can be on the hook for 18 years of child support for an unplanned child with a woman he never would have wed. Once they understand it's an economic issue for them, the become very supportive of readily accessible, in-state reproductive healthcare for women!
You missed the elephant in the room: men never did have reproductive rights, and the Democrats have been silent about that fact for decades. Frank Serpico ended up having 80% of his disability pension garnished after his girlfriend stopped taking birth control piills without telling him. He was tricked into paternity, and had to pay the price for his girlfriend's fraud and deceipt.
That helps if you’re irresponsible but that’s a tiny issue. Abortion isn’t effective birth control for men - condoms are. The real reasons to care about abortion are for women in general and your sisters and daughters in particular.
It seems to have escaped you that men never did have the right to refuse parenthood, but the Democrats are silent about that. Golook at the Frank Serpico case: his girlfriend stopped taking birth control pills without telling him. Karen deCrow represented him in court, and argued that if women can refuse parenthood, then men should have the identical right. Serpico won initially but lost on appeal. He was ordered to pay 80% of hios disability pension in child support to the woman that tricked him into paternity. I suggest that you start having as much concern for men as you do for women.
Great point, Frank. It is mindboggling to me that the double standard when it comes to parenthood doesnt bother the left. I would argue that most men understand the imbalance that's why they choose not to get married. The despair of loneliness seems far better than the shackles of fatherhood. You can work for 20 years and lose it all to fatherhood. That's not a bargain men are willing to accept anymore.
Thank you! From what I have seen of him, my take is that he avoids taking on feminists. He points out the stats on male suicide, but, doesn’t mention that feminists in Congress fund women’s issues, but ignore men’s issues. And, I haven’t seen him mention the absence of reproductive rights for men, or that the Democratic Party ignores that.
sometimes women that want to get pregnant poke holes in condoms, and impregnate themselves with used condoms that they fished out of the garbage can. Those facts seem to have escaped you.
For real though, it's not a strong argument. "If you have pathetic self-control then you should vote for legal abortion so the women who sleep with you despite your lack of virtue can choose to not have that child, which you would have to pay for." She's probably not going to abort that kid even if she can - already we know she makes bad decisions - and if you're that bad at self-control then you're unlikely to earn enough money legally that the government can even coerce much from you.
It's not that this issue provides zero motivation but it's tiny. The sort of men who would benefit from this thinking wouldn't consider it anyway: if they were those kinds of men then they wouldn't be the sort of men to have oops babies. Many would really have LIKED to have made better decisions years prior but then you're arguing to protect their sons, not them.
Also it does nothing to protect men from women who want to get pregnant regardless of the man's desire to be a father. I know this comes across as misogyny or a tiny outlier but two women have tried this with me (one admitted it outright) and I exist because my mom thought having me would keep my dad around (also admitted to be outright).
It's always been a good point, however; as fewer babies are born, as fewer men meaningfully participate in fatherhood (as a result of economics, tech/IVF, lack of incentives. etc), as "reproductive rights" continues to be coded as 'women' to the exclusion of 'men,' fewer and fewer boys/men will care.
No it’s easy to see why it’s widening. One group portrays and messages that men are the bedrock foundation of society. The other either ignores them or portrays them as the problem if they don’t subsume their will and power. As much as we don’t like to talk about by and large the left does portray men as the enemy, the cause of all our issues. It is no wonder then why they are shifting to the right. This is in despite of the policy failures on the right to actually make things better for men, in fact I would argue that the right is in part largely responsible for the hollowing out of the US manufacturing sector and the creation of wealth disparity. In fact the only thing the do for men is by and large the messaging. The left however is not substantially better on this front. What never changes they make towards improvement for men are often either couched through a racial lens or part of a larger program and the marginal gains for men are incidental. Combine that with the fact that the Clinton administration also helped hollow out the manufacturing sector and it’s really not a mystery why politics is evolving the way it is. Neither side is actually doing much on a policy front to appeal to men, and only one side features them in the conversation.
If Harris gets in, get ready for more illegal aliens, and increased taxes to pay for them, and food shortages as a resu7lt of her plans to fix prices on groceries. On the other hand, Trump will deport the ullegal aliens, and has already mentioned eliminating the income tax
Agreed Cale - When I read the analysis I was asking myself how much real policy is in US politics right now. We seem to have primarily shifted to identity and fear based platforms. This is a loss for all of us as policy is what actually affects us day x day. Great read on how NAFTA helped get us here: https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-wonks-who-refuse-to-apologize-for-nafta/
Ohhh NAFTA was a large part of it. However Reagan’s deregulation and prioritization of capital over labor also plays a big part. Add into that many people of my generation were sent off to a pointless war start over a lie. Followed by again a bailout of capital, while labor is forced to lose their homes and see stagnant wage growth. Honestly knowing that the Republican policies are objectively awful and the Democrats are only marginally bad is what prevents me from voting Republican. Peter Thiel and Musk don’t believe in democracy. They truly believe in a neo-feudalism which puts them in charge of their own fiefdom. It’s no wonder the right is pulling towards fascism and communism is gaining on the left. I predict in 2002 that the US would cease to be a Republic in my life time….i don’t like how prescient I have been
"If we restrict our sample to men and women under 40, the gaps tend to be even smaller and again, abortion is the only issue on which men and women differ significantly: "
I might be reading the graph wrong, but for the graph depicting 2024 sentiment for folks under 40, doesn't illegal immigration and climate change show equal more significant gaps than abortion?
the answer absolutely lies in culture...One hypothesis is that many younger men, especially have lacked any kind of male role model per prior generations (which were more socially connected) due to the widespread phenom of broken homes in the middle and working classes and so they gravitate to a strong man...weak families is a perfect setup for authoritarian male candidates preying on male adults with caricatured views of masculinity.
"So any gender gap in partisan preferences must have other roots".
Sadly, the authors failed to see the elephant in the room: the Democrats have already announced that they serve women, but not men. Self-resepcting men will not vote for politicians and Democrats that refuse to serve them.
https://democrats.org/who-we-are/who-we-serve/
Nice article that encourages thinking and analysis. I agree with some of the other commenters that the emerging differences are cultural and economic. Young men are no longer attending college as much as women and this is creating some ideological shifts and openings. Men are also more likely to be single now and I wonder at the impact of men who have gone their own way (MGTOW) and the rise of Only Fans and other platforms in which men are increasingly engaging with women as consumers/subscribers.
MGTOW and Red Pill are the antidotes to simping for women by being Only Fans consumers. And, take a look at the "who we serve" page on Democrats.org. They state that they serve women, but not men.
MGTOW and Redpill are the inheritors of the PUA community - grifters more interested in exploiting boys and men than helping them in any meaningful way.
One of the ways you can tell that they are grifters is that they’re not doing any sort of organizing for building political or cultural power that would *actually change policy* in favor of boys and men.
Get back to me when the Andrew Tates of the world start running for political office in the United States - though I know that’s hard when you’re hiding in Romania.
Where I’m from, masculinity is a force for enriching other others, not just the self. I have yet to see anyone in MGTOW & RedPill communities act in anyone’s interest other than their own. I have yet to see them build meaningful political and policy based movements.
That tells me all I need to know.
I would be curious where you are from but would guess somewhere in Europe, potentially Nordic country. The externalities may be the source of enriching others but the self is also enriched. When you are enriching others by working harder but everyone is enriched and you are not, then something is wrong. Most Europeans don't understand the plight of average men in the U.S.. men in the U.S are primarily working for the govt, for women or for minorities. At some point these men ask themselves what about me?
Try again.
In this video, Terrence Popp describes the tools he used to prevent him from committing suicide. He describes how 500 men wrote to him to thank him for preventing their suicides, as well. In case you were not aware of it, divorce statistically increases a man's risk of suicide eight times.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pq5cY3r6d7c
A men's advocay organization is preparing to sue the State of California for their refusal to set up a comparable commission on the status of men.
NCFM has already sued the Selective Service System for it's obvious discrimination against men. It won a toothless vicy\tory, so they will go back and launch another battle against them.
Keep in mind that women's organizations receive government support. Men's advocacy organziations are supported by private donations. If you are wondering why meaningful political moves are few and far between, that is why.
Nice to see something level headed about this. Thank you.
Genuinely think this divergence is cultural and not policy related. It isn't about the policies and leanings of one party or another, it's about the larger cultural context they exist in and how they communicate and reach out to (or push away) each gender. You'll hear the right talk about Democrats as the party of DEI and the HRification of society. These aren't political parties anymore. They're cultural forces.
This is marxism. Democrats realised that there were more women than men and looked to polarized women. They did not counted with the polarization of men. Gender has proven to be stronger than class, and the gender divide will be stronger than class divide.
Men cannot vote for Democrats.
Trump IS the only option
This is not Marxism. Please stop with that. Marxism believes in the elimination of class not the dividing and highlighting it. Just be a fox and others scream “Communism” or “Marxist” doesn’t mean they know what they are talking about. I actually encourage you to read Marx and Engles. Rather than rely on people using it as a boogie man. The Democrats aren’t Marxist. If they were it wouldn’t be this DEI garbage. They also would be much more accelerationist
Exactly. Look at the "who we serve" page on Democrats.org. They state that they serve women, but not men (and all races and ethnicities EXCEPT for White people.)
Or the programme of Kemala. She mentions women 10 times and men 0. It is unbelievable that any man vote for the Democrats. Voting for them IS the most stupid thing you can do as a man.
Another issue that few people discuss, but one that resonates with men, particularly men of military age, is that of matters of war and peace.
Many military age men are concerned about the possibility of a serious military conflict which could potentially involve a draft. Those men see a Trump/Vance administration as one less likely to involve such a conflict, or if it does, that it will end relatively quickly and will involve minimal losses on our part.
Furthermore, a Trump/Vance administration would be one in which serious military conflict is less likely to occur because such an administration projects strength. Note that there were no new wars during the last Trump administration, and no, I don’t think it was because Trump was “buddies” with tough guy leaders like Putin and Kim Jong Un, but rather, Trump approached them as business rivals—I’m willing to talk to you, but just as willing to cream you. Plus, Trump is not someone you want to cross—ask General Soleimani. Whereas the Biden/Harris administration projected weakness, or worse, big talk but little or no action.
A similar dynamic played out in 2008 in which many military age men didn’t support McCain because they worried that he would expand the Iraq War and possibly start a war with Iran.
Most people don't work out a consistent approach to policy. It really is more about vibes, and the vibes on the left and in the Democratic Party are not only consistently anti-male, but they're actively revolting or cringe to men, and especially young men, in the same way that a truly lame school assembly about the dangers of drugs was revolting when you were in high school. You're getting preached at when you'd rather be outside doing something fun and possibly dangerous, the speaker is a middle-aged white woman who lamely tries to use slang but clearly was never cool enough to know the slang from when she was a teenager, and the whole auditorium oozes a schmalzy, syrupy do-gooderism that makes you actively want to set the place on fire. As a man, you realize that a permanent Democratic majority would mean being chained to your seat in this auditorium forever. The walls will be painted pastel colors. You'll vote for *anything* other than this.
I get it, but if forced to choose between the suffocating virtue of Democrats and the cruelty and hate that the Republicans gave us at the Madison Square Garden Rally I don’t know how one picks the latter. Good, no matter how obnoxiously expressed, is better than evil.
Because it's something that's so easily corrected that the fact that it's not corrected allows men to form the assumption that the Democrats don't want to correct it. It means that Democrats must think men deserve to be talked to like that and that they expect men to understand and agree that they deserve to be constantly matronized. In other words, there is an implicit idea communicated that Democrats think that men are dangerous scumbags. It's the same vibe that has kept middle class black people from voting even for moderate Republicans, who they might agree with on social issues and economic policy, for 60 years.
Even if you agree with someone on policy, if you believe they actively hate you, it's perfectly rational not to vote for them.
I think you are conflating “progressivism” as a broader cultural entity and the Democratic Party as an institution. Sarah Jeong doesn’t work for the Democratic Party.
Frankly, I can’t think of what more the Harris campaign could have done to moderate on culture war issues. Take the win!
Go to the "who we serve" page of Democrats.org. It mentions that the Democrats serve women, but not men. That's a loss, not a win. And, Harris just announced that women that vote Republicans do so because theur husbands have forced them to do so. Patronizing to women , and insulting to men.
https://nypost.com/2024/10/30/opinion/harris-gross-message-women-vote-gop-because-men-make-them/
1. It was a PAC, not the campaign itself.
2. Given the number of women who are in abusive marriages (or just married to thoughtless idiots), it's enough to make a demographic worth going after. A sad fact, but one none the less.
3. It's really not a good look when married men get pissed about it. It's basically admitting that you're such a hostile and threatening blowhard that you're incapable of having a good enough relationship with your wife to trust that you have the same values or at the very least can tolerate political disagreement. In other words, if you're insulted by the ad as a man, it's probably because it hits a bit close to home.
You are obviously unaware of the research that has found that women batter men as often as the converse. That research goes back to the work of Suzanne Steinmetz, Murray Straus and Richard Gelles, back in the 1970s. Feminists made death threats against the three to try to silence them. Here is a compendium of the research:
https://www.humanrightsaction.org/violence/Fiebert/english.html
Back in the 90s, Biden wrote the Violence Against Women Act, which ignores female-on-male domestic violence and the fact that men are violent crime victims 2 times more often than women. Men tried to present the evidence of equal perpetration of DV between the sexes during VAWA public hearings, but were told to shut up. At the same time, the Women's Health Act was passed, which violated also violates the Equal Protection Clause rights of men. As a result, there is far more funding for breast cancer than prostate cancer. Think about that at your next annual physical.
Unfortunately, I have not seen Richard mention facts like these that feminists don't want to hear.
The Man Enough ad was something that was Dem approved and it made most men want to stick a fork into their eyeballs. Also, don't insult me by claiming that the Dems don't stand for broad cultural progressivism. I agree with them on 75% of it and will probably vote for them this time and even I absolutely despise them.
In terms of cultural moderation, as long as we are talking about it, the mainstream progressive position on trans issues comes off as extreme to about 70% of the country. I don't particularly care, no skin off my nose, but the ads Trump is running on the subject are helping him.
The Democrats haven't lifted a finger to help men in decades, and that is the case now, too (bysaving that they serve women but not men). I don't vote for people and political parties that tell men to buzz off.
Thanks Richard for raising this, I think this ties in neatly with some of the false portrayal of the data that I write about here: https://ronghosh.substack.com/p/the-gerrymandered-gen-z-gender-graph
Interesting research, and very helpful. As an anthropologist, I have had the suspicion that the political gap was cultural (it is my field, after all), but these data help to make the case, for sure. There are sociological and anthropological sources out there that are exploring this. Men's identity used to be founded, in part, on a hierarchical understanding of gender, bolstered by the exclusion of women from higher paying work. The economic hierarchy is disappearing as a) more women enter the higher-paying fields that were formerly restricted for them, b) "male" work available to those without college education (e.g., union work in factories) is increasingly sent off-shore chasing lower wages and fewer environmental regulations, and c) incomes outside the top 10% fail to grow at the rate of inflation.
Just as some politicians have promised reactionary economic policies (e.g., bringing back the coal industry), so too are some promising a reactionary cultural shift to a time of established patriarchy and sexism. Clearly it's finding its audience (as many of the comments here demonstrate!) But like anti-immigrant rhetoric, that seems a short-term strategy in the face of longer-term social/cultural shifts. The better response, I would argue, would be a shift in masculine identity that does not require economic dominance/superiority to women, but is, as you've argued elsewhere, rooted in social provision, relationships, and masculine forms of emotional-social provision. I think there are glimmers of this shift, but it won't become normative so long as it remains partisan.
I have always been somewhat gender non-conforming and atypical - by which I mean not caring about the prescribed roles and traits, and thus free to adopt what resonates for me from either palette, rather than slavishly stereotypical OR oppositional and required to break every stereotype. (Neither of which is freedom to be).
However, I really don't understand what concrete concepts you reference with your abstract terminology. It could mean a lot of quite different things, with different implications.
I would be interested in how a masculine identity "rooted in social provision, relationships, and masculine forms of emotional-social provision" would look, and how it would differ from feminine identity "rooted in social provision, relationships, and feminine forms of emotional-social provision"? What's the difference between "social provision" and "emotional-social provision"? Could you describe "masculine" vs "feminine" forms of emotional-social provisioning?
As an anthropologist who has presumably studied sex roles in many cultures at least to some degree whether or not it's your specialization, do you think that there is any positive social benefit in having differences in the identities of males and females, or should the goal be that ALL concepts of masculinity (and femininity) be abolished?
While I personally have been skeptical of prescriptive sex roles, I can nevertheless understand the men who perceive progressive's concept of "good masculinity" as being more like imposing feminine values on them (the equivalent of men unilaterally deciding what acceptable femininity consists of). I can understand why the former would not be attractive to humans who happen to be male, just as I understand why unilaterally male-imposed restrictions on "good femininity" would be unattractive to humans who happen to be female.
To counter that perception that "men should be whatever women want them to be", I'm looking for what you think are "proper" traits of masculinity but not femininity, in more concrete terms than "emotional-social provision" (as a separate item from "social provision" apparently).
"I would be interested in how a masculine identity "rooted in social provision, relationships, and masculine forms of emotional-social provision" would look, and how it would differ from feminine identity "rooted in social provision, relationships, and feminine forms of emotional-social provision"? What's the difference between "social provision" and "emotional-social provision"? Could you describe "masculine" vs "feminine" forms of emotional-social provisioning?"
Yes, I think these can all be described, but only in context. There are not, of course, generic/non-culturally-specific forms of masculinity or femininity.
I should distinguish between "emotional provisioning" and "social provisioning" although there is significant overlap, hence the "emotional-social" thing I threw in there. What I mean by social is friendship, companionship, mentorship, and other forms of social connection. What I mean by "emotional" is the provision of psychological support, encouragement, sympathy, and expressions of care. Obviously, these overlap in the real world quite a bit, but I do think they're distinct.
what do masculine forms look like vs. feminine forms? Again, give me a context to talk about. I think different generations, to say nothing of national/ethnic/racial/cultural groups have different expecations and expressions of these as feminine and masculine, and even then they are contested and variable.
But I definitely agree that differences between male/female forms of social-cultural expression are both universally human and a social good. (And, from my POV, a spiritual good as well.) And having gendered social expressions is not necessarily the same thing as "sex roles" or "gender roles" which almost always has an economic and political dimension. So I think we can have concepts/practices of masculinity and femininity without (rigid) sex roles as such.
> I think these can all be described, but only in context.
So a behavior which you would consider proper masculinity among the Inca in 1300 might be toxic masculinity in the US today, and vice versa?
Let's assume the context is the US around the year 2024. Could you give some answers to the questions I asked, in that context? In the current context of cultural upheaval, many men (especially young ones) want to know what they are asked to be, what is an acceptable or praiseworthy form of gender expression for males (specifically in contrast to females, rather than universal positive traits). How would you answer that (see my questions quoted at the start of your response), trying to avoid abstractions whose referent is unclear. Giving some examples,, if possible.
How would you advise young men to find a masculine identity which is NOT just "be just like women instead of men" (as some prescriptions are perceived by young men)?
> I definitely agree that differences between male/female forms of social-cultural expression are both universally human and a social good. (And, from my POV, a spiritual good as well.)
OK, thanks. (I was not actually stating an opinion about that, to be agreed upon or not, as much as asking an open question to learn from, given your field of expertise).
> And having gendered social expressions is not necessarily the same thing as "sex roles" or "gender roles" which almost always has an economic and political dimension.
So do you see things like wearing earrings or being into football games as "gendered expression", versus "sex roles", because they don't have large enough economic or political dimension to be a "role"? Would you see the predominance of females in childcare and early teaching as more of "sex role" based on a social stereotype of their being more nurturing, as a "sex role"?
> I think we can have concepts/practices of masculinity and femininity without (rigid) sex roles as such.
OK, I would love to hear more specifics of what you think would be acceptable implementations of that. And yes, I think we both agree that rigid roles are a problem. What are some examples of concepts/practices of masculinity and femininity without sex roles which you would support for contemporary society?
I have genuine curiosity about this, I'm not just trying to argue to be right. I am not just trying to sort out my identity at my age, but I have a lot of sympathy for the confusing messages young people of both sexes are getting today, and I would like to hear some clarity about what you think they should be told about appropriate masculinity. Just criticizing them for being "the wrong kind of masculine" is not enough, nor are cringe messages which boil down to "act like a woman would"; there needs to be more concrete and solid vision of a positive path if we want positive change rather than just dysfunctional self-hatred and confusion.
OK. I'm basically talking about things like being a little league coach are a kind of masculine emotional and/or social provisioning. Of course, women can do that, too, but they would, likely, do it differently than most men would. How "should" a man be a little league coach? He should do it the way that feels right to him and helps the kids. He can be "tough" and "manly" in that role to whatever degree feels normal for him and is helpful for the kids to develop emotionally, physically, athletically. He could also be soft-spoken, emotionally responsive and nurturing. The point is that we need to see the work he does as properly masculine, not simply (or only) because of how he does it, but because of what he is doing. By going out an serving as a kind of surrogate father for kids, in this case. That's what coaches, and mentors, have long done.
If men, young or otherwise, are looking for ways to be in society, I would say: Be Productive. And I don't mean economically productive, I mean socially and emotionally productive. How? Do it however feels good for you as a man, and let's call that good masculine behavior.
Reeves has a couple posts that actually circle around what I'm getting at here where he's written in some depth about "relational masculinity." I don't see anyone (least of all me) criticizing someone for being the "wrong kind of masculine." So long as the expressions of masculinity are having positive relational effects, then cool.
“There’s no easy answer to the question of why the political gender gap seems to be widening. But it does seem to lie more in the realm of culture than policy.” Interesting article, but I was hoping you would try to speculate a little more on some plausible hypothesis.
Go to the "who we serve" page on Democrats.org. You will see that the Democrats serve women, but not men.
Sort of.
They list lots of items for "who they serve". It's an intersectional identity framing, and they are positioning themselves to serve the "oppressed" end of each identity bifurcation. So they serve LGBTQIA+ males, or African-American males, who get to be on the oppressed side because of that attribute and thus deserve service from Democrats.
But I see your point that if we consider only sex and not other intersectional identities, the Democratic platform serves women just for being women, but not men just for being men; men need to qualify under some other identity group to matter. They do serve trans men, for example, just for being trans men.
Yes, basically we serve females and people that lean less traditionally masculine. Even Richard Reeves noted the same issue on a show recently. Even you say we don't serve you, while would they vote for you.
The gender gap pay issue has been used to fund cheaper labor. No new jobs were made for women. They just replaced the expendable human resources for a cheaper price because they will accept less and do more. Men were, at some capacity, trying to intimidate the work force to get fair pay 401k retirement health care. And looks what happens when they replaced the men in the workforce? Lower pay, larger pay gaps between wealthy and middle class. Terrible retirement. People getting pennies in the tech industry to fund "ai" companies to make billions? People just began setting the bar lower and willing to take the fucking with no lube and a rusty pole in the ass made in some Midwest town with nothing left except the people you claim to be helping. This ideal is so disconnected. This is what we call soft masculinity. Even the numbers of women jobs are starting to go down. Now with the tech industry with little to no customer service. Goes what ladies. Your kind of fucking it up and being used because of your caring nature. Eventually people have to say fuck you because it's coming no matter what. People willing to accept less, new workers who are bilingual and can do the job a little less better than the previous for much less.
The gap IS simple: as a man, you CANNOT vote for Democrats, the party that has been insulting you, bolstering women Over men and blaming men for his "toxic masculinity". While promoting the "Future is Female", instituting female affirmative action to the expense of men.
We are not against women progress, we are against a party that aligns with one gender to the expense of the other.
Kemala dont even mention males innher programme, but she mentions females 10 times.
And now they are NOT concerned about males, but about males voting Trump.
YES. WE ARE VOTING TRUMP. And future Will be male. Too.
And now Kemala IS worriedb
WE VOTE TRUMP. PERIOD.
“In her programme”?
PR, my dear, generically-named, no profile pic, 100 day old account:
In US English, the word is “program”.
If you are real and not just one of the many political agents floating around Substack right now, please know that you deserve a better informational diet than what you’re on. You need strategy and substance; not the empty calories of conflict.
Whether you’re real or not: I see you, and I’m not alone.
Dear condescendent Ian,
I have explained several times here, I am not from the US. If the only criticism you can do on my comment is that I am using Oxford English instead of American one... Well, perhaps my comment was more accrurate than I even expected.
(Btw if you lean left, it is a neocolonialist and American privilege to discualify the wrong use of English by a non-native speaker).
Happy to continue this productive discussion if you are prepared to go beyond linguistics... We may have more in common than you think.
In the meantime, vote well. Vote wise. Vote for Trump.
Note: apologies in advance for any mistake.
Excellent analysis. The roots may lay in your last sentence "it does seem to lie more in the realm of culture than policy." To the extent men and women have their own cultures or roles there is a gap between them. Many young men are also in opposition to this gap closing and identify more with parties and policies that aren't hostile to their identity. How can politics make more room for both men and women? That is especially important as men's and women's roles continue to evolve.
Tell that to the Democratic Party. On the "who we serve" page of Democrats.org, they mention that they serve women, but not men. How the author could have missed this elepgant in the room is beyond comprehension.
Simple. Stop making a war on men. And apologise for the last 40 years.
Funny thing - some men think abortion is not an issue for them until they realize they can be on the hook for 18 years of child support for an unplanned child with a woman he never would have wed. Once they understand it's an economic issue for them, the become very supportive of readily accessible, in-state reproductive healthcare for women!
You missed the elephant in the room: men never did have reproductive rights, and the Democrats have been silent about that fact for decades. Frank Serpico ended up having 80% of his disability pension garnished after his girlfriend stopped taking birth control piills without telling him. He was tricked into paternity, and had to pay the price for his girlfriend's fraud and deceipt.
That helps if you’re irresponsible but that’s a tiny issue. Abortion isn’t effective birth control for men - condoms are. The real reasons to care about abortion are for women in general and your sisters and daughters in particular.
It seems to have escaped you that men never did have the right to refuse parenthood, but the Democrats are silent about that. Golook at the Frank Serpico case: his girlfriend stopped taking birth control pills without telling him. Karen deCrow represented him in court, and argued that if women can refuse parenthood, then men should have the identical right. Serpico won initially but lost on appeal. He was ordered to pay 80% of hios disability pension in child support to the woman that tricked him into paternity. I suggest that you start having as much concern for men as you do for women.
Great point, Frank. It is mindboggling to me that the double standard when it comes to parenthood doesnt bother the left. I would argue that most men understand the imbalance that's why they choose not to get married. The despair of loneliness seems far better than the shackles of fatherhood. You can work for 20 years and lose it all to fatherhood. That's not a bargain men are willing to accept anymore.
Thank you. Good observations.
Registered black democrat. Voted for Trump. I follow Richard Reeves but am not surprised he misses certain aspects of the average man's life.
Thank you! From what I have seen of him, my take is that he avoids taking on feminists. He points out the stats on male suicide, but, doesn’t mention that feminists in Congress fund women’s issues, but ignore men’s issues. And, I haven’t seen him mention the absence of reproductive rights for men, or that the Democratic Party ignores that.
Right - because men love wearing condoms and no one's judgment is ever impaired by alcohol in a sexual encounter /s
sometimes women that want to get pregnant poke holes in condoms, and impregnate themselves with used condoms that they fished out of the garbage can. Those facts seem to have escaped you.
Sounds like a skill issue.
For real though, it's not a strong argument. "If you have pathetic self-control then you should vote for legal abortion so the women who sleep with you despite your lack of virtue can choose to not have that child, which you would have to pay for." She's probably not going to abort that kid even if she can - already we know she makes bad decisions - and if you're that bad at self-control then you're unlikely to earn enough money legally that the government can even coerce much from you.
It's not that this issue provides zero motivation but it's tiny. The sort of men who would benefit from this thinking wouldn't consider it anyway: if they were those kinds of men then they wouldn't be the sort of men to have oops babies. Many would really have LIKED to have made better decisions years prior but then you're arguing to protect their sons, not them.
Also it does nothing to protect men from women who want to get pregnant regardless of the man's desire to be a father. I know this comes across as misogyny or a tiny outlier but two women have tried this with me (one admitted it outright) and I exist because my mom thought having me would keep my dad around (also admitted to be outright).
It's always been a good point, however; as fewer babies are born, as fewer men meaningfully participate in fatherhood (as a result of economics, tech/IVF, lack of incentives. etc), as "reproductive rights" continues to be coded as 'women' to the exclusion of 'men,' fewer and fewer boys/men will care.
No it’s easy to see why it’s widening. One group portrays and messages that men are the bedrock foundation of society. The other either ignores them or portrays them as the problem if they don’t subsume their will and power. As much as we don’t like to talk about by and large the left does portray men as the enemy, the cause of all our issues. It is no wonder then why they are shifting to the right. This is in despite of the policy failures on the right to actually make things better for men, in fact I would argue that the right is in part largely responsible for the hollowing out of the US manufacturing sector and the creation of wealth disparity. In fact the only thing the do for men is by and large the messaging. The left however is not substantially better on this front. What never changes they make towards improvement for men are often either couched through a racial lens or part of a larger program and the marginal gains for men are incidental. Combine that with the fact that the Clinton administration also helped hollow out the manufacturing sector and it’s really not a mystery why politics is evolving the way it is. Neither side is actually doing much on a policy front to appeal to men, and only one side features them in the conversation.
That’s how I feel about it. Next election without Trump I might actually vote Republican.
If Harris gets in, get ready for more illegal aliens, and increased taxes to pay for them, and food shortages as a resu7lt of her plans to fix prices on groceries. On the other hand, Trump will deport the ullegal aliens, and has already mentioned eliminating the income tax
Agreed Cale - When I read the analysis I was asking myself how much real policy is in US politics right now. We seem to have primarily shifted to identity and fear based platforms. This is a loss for all of us as policy is what actually affects us day x day. Great read on how NAFTA helped get us here: https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-wonks-who-refuse-to-apologize-for-nafta/
Ohhh NAFTA was a large part of it. However Reagan’s deregulation and prioritization of capital over labor also plays a big part. Add into that many people of my generation were sent off to a pointless war start over a lie. Followed by again a bailout of capital, while labor is forced to lose their homes and see stagnant wage growth. Honestly knowing that the Republican policies are objectively awful and the Democrats are only marginally bad is what prevents me from voting Republican. Peter Thiel and Musk don’t believe in democracy. They truly believe in a neo-feudalism which puts them in charge of their own fiefdom. It’s no wonder the right is pulling towards fascism and communism is gaining on the left. I predict in 2002 that the US would cease to be a Republic in my life time….i don’t like how prescient I have been