Among one of the most stunning foul-ups of the Democrat Party is their complete and total misunderstanding of half the country, and I don't mean Republicans. I mean men.
When you really stop to think about it, the Democrat Party's unrelenting anti-male mentality is a move so stupid that it defies explanation, as it leaves you without a large chunk of the voting base, and during elections, large chunks of the voting base are important to have. The 2024 election was proof that the Democrats learned only too late that they needed men to win, and their approach wasn't to try to reach men where they were, but redefine masculinity.
I did an entire YouTube video on this subject for your viewing pleasure.
Despite all their efforts, the results were nothing short of laughable.
Between the "White Dudes for Harris" and effeminate men pretending to be farmers saying Harris has his "full-throated endorsement," nothing was quite moving the needle. What's more, the Harris campaign decided that Governor Tim Walz would be a fantastic pick for VP because he would be able to attract men back to the party.
It was a choice that would spell absolute doom for the Democrat Party's attempts to attract the male vote.
As my colleague Rusty Weiss reported on Wednesday, Walz looked back at the campaign and elaborated on why he was chosen:
"But I also was on the ticket, quite honestly, you know, because I could code talk to white guys watching football, fixing their truck ... that I could put them at ease," he added.
Walz went on to disclose that he was viewed as "the permission structure" for white guys who watch football and fix trucks to feel it was okay to vote for the party of men playing in women's sports, the party of endless pride parades, and the party of they/them pronouns.
I want to zero in on "permission structure," because that one phrase really gives you a look into how the Democrat Party views men, and it's nothing close to being knowledgeable.
For those who've never heard of a "permission structure," it's effectively where someone sees someone else in their peer group, racial demo, age demo, etc., taking part in something in a positive light, and thus makes it easy to join in. Walz, and groups like "White Dudes for Harris," were supposed to be that "permission structure" for white men to join up with the Democrat Party and vote for a woman.
To their credit, humans are pack animals by instinct, and we will gather around each other in order to take part in social connection with our cultural peers, and that can take on a lot of different forms, whether it's experiencing a concert, celebrating holidays, or even taking part in political rallies.
But the issue the Democrats are running into is that the "permission structure" they were hoping would work isn't one that typically works on men.
Men aren't highly moved by things like social proofs, mutual affirmation, and shared experiences... that's what women tend to gravitate toward.
Women are far more socially attuned than men, and place high value on emotional connection, affirmation, and validation from their peers. Empathy and mutual reinforcement form the backbone of a lot of women's relationships. Even from a young age, girls have tea parties with each other or dolls and stuffed animals, as they're far more instinctually inclined to verbal-level social engagement and emotionally-based communication.
If a woman sees a lot of women gravitating toward and gathering around something, her instinct to engage and participate is very high. She sees a social proof of something and wants to be a part of the experience with her peers. That is a "permission structure" at its core. Visible consensus is emotional safety.
Men do not operate that way, at least not nearly as deeply as women do.
Men bond through competition, action, and struggle. Affirmation and reassurance is nice, but it's not nearly as valuable to the male of the species as respect. You can hate a man all day, but his main concern is your respect for him. Your feelings toward him are a tertiary concern.
Men's social bonding looks odd on paper. We can disagree to the point of coming to blows, insult one another, demean one another in awful ways... then walk away being best friends with a deeper bond than we had before. We actually thrive on individual dissent and competing to make our perspective the dominant one. This is far more valuable to us than mutual agreement and reassurance. Not that men don't seek reassurance and validation on things from their peers from time to time, but you won't find this being the foundation of their social framework.
Men naturally gravitate toward accomplishment and merit. They'll actively distance themselves from something that they perceive as bad, useless, or stupid, even if a bunch of other people are gathered around it. They're far more likely to voice that dissent as well, even if it means social isolation and a status as a pariah.
The Democrats attempted to attract men in the same way they tried to attract women, and now seem confused as to why it didn't work. They had white guys singing Kamala Harris's praises, they had a white guy fixing a truck and talking about sports, but at the end of the day, men didn't show up for the Democrats. The reason why is pretty clear and evident.
Men are not women. We don't view the world the same way. We aren't attracted to something because someone who looks like us, or was from our peer group, gave it the thumbs up. We were more concerned about what works, what benefits our families, and who was acting the least ridiculous.
If Democrats really want to attract men, they need to start by figuring out what a man is, and why he functions the way he does.
