It reminds me of Inspector Clouseau – the old Peter Sellers character who fancied himself a super sleuth but was utterly incompetent, failing to see what was right before his eyes and misunderstanding what he did see.
I refer of course to the mid-brow comedy that is the Democratic Party’s oh-so-earnest investigation into that mysterious breed of humanity, “men.” This was prompted by the fact that, last November, its presidential ticket drew a smaller percentage of male voters than anyone in recent history, just 42%, down a whopping six percentage points from just four years ago.
So, the Dems are spending $20 million (!) over two years on something called Speaking with American Men (SAM) and the early results are in. It turns out that nonstop denigration of- and cluelessness about- men turns us off. Who’d have guessed?
Among Gen Z participants of the SAM surveys,
“Democrats are seen as weak, whereas Republicans are seen as strong,” [co-founder of SAM, Ilyse] Hogue said. “Young men also spoke of being invisible to the Democratic coalition, and so you’ve got this weak problem and then you’ve got this, ‘I don’t think they care about me’ problem, and I think the combination is kind of a killer.”
Speaking of being seen as strong, despite huge amounts of negative press and pushback against his policies in Europe, China, Canada, the U.S., the judiciary, etc., Trump’s approval ratings remain sound. Sending the National Guard and the Marines to Los Angeles says ‘strong.’ So does his military parade. So did stopping illegal entry across the southern border after four years of Biden claiming there was nothing he could do.
But Democrats’ problems don’t end there. Men, having always been valued as resource providers are understandably angry about economic policies that have sent prices skyward while depressing their earning ability.
They also said they now feel overwhelmed by economic anxiety, making “traditional milestones,” like buying a home or saving for kids’ college, “feel impossible,” an analysis of the research said.
That’s sent Democratic support by young men to unprecedentedly low levels.
SAM’s national survey found that just 27 percent of young men viewed the Democratic Party positively, while 43 percent of them viewed the Republican Party favorably.
So, are Democratic Party officials actually concerned enough about the male vote to alter the party’s platform to better appeal to them? My guess is they’re not and I’m not the only one.
“The Democratic Party is missing that we’re not going to be able to message our way out of these deep problems men are facing, starting with the fact that they know the Democratic Party doesn’t really like or respect them,” said Ross Morales Rocketto, a Democratic strategist…
Yet “messaging” is exactly what the SAM project looks like.
“Democrats can’t win these folks over if they’re not speaking the language that young men are speaking,” Hogue said.
Sure. It’s all about speaking their language. Right.
So who is Ilyse Hogue, this person the party has tapped to correct its messaging to men? In brief, the worst possible. It turns out she’s as steeped in extremist feminist rhetoric and general wokeness as anyone on the planet. Read this piece for just how terrible a choice she is to instruct the party (or anyone) on how to talk to men.
Given that more thorough treatment, I’ll confine myself to just one issue. Hogue’s a past president of the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) that now calls itself Reproductive Freedom for All. RFA loudly and proudly ballyhoos its support for reproductive freedom, but it’s the “for all” part that’s the problem. On the RFA website, we search in vain for any mention of fathers’ rights in child custody cases, legal/moral condemnation of paternity fraud, anti-dad bias by child welfare agencies or putative father registries that shanghai children from unknowing fathers. Should mothers be required to inform fathers that they have a child? RFA is silent on that subject as well as paternity testing at birth, or in fact any of the issues of reproductive freedom that daily steamroll fathers.
Are we surprised? We are not.
Now, Rocketto is undeniably right; a few tweaks to the same old misandry won’t lasso men into the Democratic Party corral. But here’s the problem: when it comes to men, “messaging our way out of these deep problems” is about all Democrats have. For far too long, they’ve parroted extremist feminist analyses and disdain for men to make the necessary U-turn now.
A few examples:
· For decades, domestic violence was a major feminist talking point, depicting it as ubiquitous and solely men’s fault. As senator, Joe Biden made it perhaps his most important legislative initiative culminating in the Violence Against Women Act that overtly misrepresented the facts about DV and frankly discriminated against males, ignoring domestic violence against men and violence that occurs within gay and lesbian couples.
· During the Obama Administration, the Department of Education issued its “Dear Colleague” letter that sharply curtailed the due process rights of students accused of sexual misbehavior on campus and whose purpose was to empower women at the expense of men.
· Meanwhile, colleges and universities simply ignored Title IX in order to provide services and facilities that benefited female and ignored male students. Economist Mark Perry has detailed hundreds of such violations of federal law, all of which were smiled on by the Obama and Biden administrations.
· And of course Democrats everywhere claim that trans men are actually men and must be acknowledged as such.
· Then there was Hillary Clinton who famously declared that women are the primary victims in war because their male relatives could be killed, injured, maimed, disfigured, etc. As she understands it, actually being killed is not, if you’re a man, as important as, if you’re a woman, knowing someone who was. Plus, in HRC’s world, men don’t have male relatives and therefore don’t suffer if one of them is killed or injured.
I could go on and on, but suffice it to say that, when it comes to its rejection by men, the Democratic Party is stuck. Attempting to message its way out of that predicament will be seen for what it is – a thinly-veiled ruse. But actually changing policies would drive off many of those who do vote for them – extremist feminists and the crazy woke.
As Clouseau once inquired, “how can a blind man be a lookout?” Idiot though Clouseau was, even he understood the problem. Democrats? Not so much.
