TFP Article on "How Democrats Lost Men"

I agree re the poor, but wouldn't you call Trump sexist? His Epstein close friendship and the infamous Access Hollywood 'grab em' tape seem hard to see as non-sexist.

That's right.

And having watched on TV some of Kamala Harris' performances, I don't think it was because of "plain old sexism and racism" that people didn't vote for her.

It was a lot more simple than that...

There used to be a thing in NYC local politics about 100 years ago where Italians voted Republican because they were excluded from the Irish-controlled Democratic Party machine. Even today Italians are more Republican than your median NYC voter.

The Democratic Party in recent decades has become more and more dominated by permanent identity caucuses. This is different from the party organically becoming more female, multiracial etc. The logical end point was Hillary's infamous campaign website in 2016 where there were hundreds of policies micro-targeted at particular demographics, and you could input the demographic groups you belonged to and find out that Hillary had a package of policies that would save you XYZ dollars per month.

It's not just that it's offputting to people who don't fall into the favoured groups, it's also that some people find it annoying on principle.

I don't think there's an easy fix to this. It's too much part of the inherited DNA, and goes way back before the 60s. Republicans generally see themselves as the party of normie Americans (even when they're in a minority). Democrats, and this goes way back to their founding by Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren, have usually seen themselves as the coalition of the outgroups (even when they've been a dominant majority). That feeds into different rhetorical styles and even ways of thinking about politics.

Smart Democrats have been able to find a unifying theme, like Jacksonian populism or the New Deal. That's been thin on the ground in recent decades. I think Bill Clinton's techno-optimism was the last substantial stab at a theme.

Patrick Ruffini's polling is very interesting on this kind of thing.

I think it's pretty perceptive

I disagree on the honour thing, individual men are celebrated all the time, even by Democrats. Look at all the male celebrities in the world and tell me seriously that men are never publicly honoured.

But I agree that it was a mistake to turn away from talking about traditional left-wing policies that help everybody, and particularly the working class (e.g. healthcare, workers' rights, infrastructure investment) and instead to focus on rhetoric about helping minorities. That was never going to appeal to a lot of white men.

Seems exactly right to me.

(Though it correctly notes that US men have moved right, without noting that US women have moved even more left, which leaves a bit of a misleading impression that ‘polarisation’ is something men specifically did).

And for all we know the Democrats losing is because many US citizens didn't want to vote for a Black Cat Lady.
ie just plain old sexism and racism.

Trump improved his performance with every demographic except white men.

But crack on.

Not sure what points are being made, but the number of women voting Democrat in the last election was lower than the previous election.

But then that reflects the fact that just like Labour didn't win the last election, the Tories lost (ie Starmer's vote was really small, less than Corbyn) Trump didn't win the last Presidential Election, the Democrats lost. Something like 7 million people who had voted Democrat just didn't turn out to vote. Trump did gain about a million votes, but hard to say why that was.

And for all we know the Democrats losing is because many US citizens didn't want to vote for a Black Cat Lady.

ie just plain old sexism and racism.

@IwantToRetire - "... So rather than the democrats being the problem but is asking why so many men apparently thought the macho, sexist, woman harming stance of Trump's MAGA agenda was something they wanted to identify with."

I'm no expert on American politics but it seemed to me in 2016 and last year that a lot of american men (mostly white but a surprisingly large minority of black and hispanic too) voted for Trump because the Obama administration pre-2016 and the Biden administration pre-2024 hadn't really done anything to help them - particularly poor voters.

I'm in the UK and I remember watching a BBC series talking to ordinary US voters in the months running up to the 2016 election. It seemed obvious to me that ouside the big metropolitan areas Trump would win.

And last year was a walkover after Biden's performances and Harris came across as a non-entity.

I'm not sure if Trump's successes have much to do with what you call his "macho, sexist, woman harming stance ... MAGA agenda" rather than the uselessness of the democrats.

I think you have a good point.

I've always seen "identity" politics as simply another manifestation of "tribalism" and quite likely a backward step.

Or at least a backward step if your aim is inclusivity and not division.

To me it's everythng I thought the "left" stood against

What's happening with Democrats is what many on the left warned of: if you create a party that centres identity then by definition you centre the other party by the identities your not. That goes for sex, race, sexuality, religion, etc. That, in turn, subordinates debates about governing philosophy that cut across identities.

In general it's damaging governance - governing is hard; it requires coherence, knowledge, narrative, and discipline. If you're simply acting to advance your tribal identities then you're not going to have the bandwidth to form policy to advance the general good. What's worse you force the opposing party to organise itself along identity lines too. It's not that it's a losing strategy, Democrats are winning the women's vote just as their losing the men's vote so they're not inherently less electable, but there's a strong argument that that makes government over-all worse and less responsive to the needs of the governed.

On a skim read the problem with his arguement is that somehow what being a male is fixed.

And he is cross that women have changed so that unchanging men no longer have attributes that make them useful to society.

Naughty women.

Funnily enough this is exactly what was discussed years ago following the advances made by the Women's Liberation Movement.

Women changed, or rather women challenged and overcame the limited straightjacket of gender norms.

And as was said at the time, women wanted to change, they just never took into account that men didn't.

----
This is not to say the Democrats campaigning slogans were right - but men not accepting that toxic masculinity is a problem for sociey, shows that they still dont want to change. As this silly man shows.

So rather than the democrats being the problem but is asking why so many men apparently thought the macho, sexist, woman harming stance of Trump's MAGA agenda was something they wanted to identify with.

Archive link - I assume it is the whole article

https://archive.is/NHIU6

I can't read it either.

With the comment on honour - the way I am reading that is that he is saying that if society doesn't think honour is an important attribute, men (in particular) won't have acting honourably as a personal goal or see it as something important in itself.

I know people don't like the idea that someone does "the right thing" for public plaudits. But there is some truth to it, or maybe equally the reserve - people who should feel embarrassed or ashamed for behaving dishonourably. will be pushed to do the right thing even when it is hard.

But if society says, doing what's best for you is what's right, behaving honourably is for mugs, we don't expect anyone to behave honourably - they are less likely to do the right thing when it is hard.

I loved the Dems video aimed at men ahead of the election.
"I'm a man, and love the company of strong women".
"I'm a man, and wasn't afraid to cry when my daughter was born".
"I'm a man, and open up to my wife".
"I'm a man, and not threatened by a female President".
The perfect bookend to the Sadiq Khan "Maaate!" campaign.
Basically, the video bombed, men felt belittled, singled out, and after years of the likes of the Obamas banging on about toxic masculinity, the video arguably cost Harris votes.

Paywalled.