Drunk On Reason

The current political pandemonium has perhaps made it seem almost surreal to leave your home and see ordinary folks, aware of all the turmoil to varying degrees of detail, going about their days apparently unfazed. Maybe they are not unfazed and, maybe, they too are preoccupied by life’s unending demands of their attention. Afterall, our cognitive resources are in short supply and, at any given moment, life is constantly tugging at these very resources. So, who has time to truly ponder upon the fact that there was an assassination attempt on the life of a current U.S. presidential candidate and a former president? Or that the same presidential candidate is now formally a convicted felon? Or that recently and in an ambiguous ruling, the highest court in this nation declared that the president, whoever that may be, has “absolute immunity” while performing “official acts,”¹ essentially settling the case by posing more questions than it answered? Or that a winner of a presidential primary decided to drop out of the race, only four months before the election, under pressure from fellow party members? All of this dwarfs the chaos of the 2020 presidential election, and that one had a singer candidate in it curiously concerned about the size of Twix chocolate bars. 

Perhaps we have grown numb to this style of politics. In another world, after an assassination attempt, the two candidates would meet in person, hold each other’s hands and unequivocally condemn political violence of all kinds, clearly stating that certain principles of law, order, decency, and basic integrity are to be cherished above political rivalry. In that world, no former president would have his unscrupulous lawyers scour through every statute in existence, every applicable case law in this country’s history, not to make the case that he is innocent, but that he cannot be prosecuted because he has “absolute immunity.” Perhaps an idea that the founding fathers would roll in their graves over, being that they had specifically sought to divorce their new government from a monarchy with absolute immunity from whence it came. Staying in that same world, a president showing distinct signs of cognitive decay would not seek reelection and would leave the field open to other capable candidates who could have sufficient time to build a movement of their own and measure the promise of their campaign against the will of the voters, not the delegates. But I am telling fairy tales now and those who know me know quite well that I am no fan of fairy tales.

With that being said, it would be unfair, in my opinion, to equivocate the two sides of this political balance. To me, the choice was clear then and is even clearer now. The reasons for why I see Donald Trump as severely unfit to be President need a blog post of their own and I might write about that at some other time. But to clear any confusion, those reasons do not have to do with what many on the Left of the political aisle have been fearing ever since he launched his unfortunate presidential campaign in 2015. I do not believe that Trump is an incarnation of Hitler or Mussolini, nor do I consider him a fascist, at least not in the sense commonly associated with the term. His lip service to the White Nationalist movement is nothing but that and his worldview does not appear to be aligned with those of Evangelicals who make up the bulk of his supporters. In fact, I don’t believe that this man has a worldview of any kind at all. That is why IVF (in-vitro fertilization) is the new cool kid on the block where everyone can have it for “free” in Trump’s world.² It is also why he labels his opponent as a “Communist” and a “Fascist” in the same breath.³ He seesaws on Medicare and Social Security,⁴⁵ does not have a clear position on the Russia-Ukraine war as well as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict except to suggest that he could end one or the other in only 24 hours.⁶ His proposed tariffs⁷ are largely at odds with his declared “pro-free-market” position and he wants to run “Obamacare,” a government healthcare plan, “as good as it can be run”⁸ until his conceptual healthcare plans are actualized. He is neither a Socialist nor a Capitalist. But there is one thing that he so undeniably and unquestionably is; a dick. Not the kind that can give pleasure or even receive it, but the kind that mingles about from place to place uninvited, rubs itself against anything and everything, declares that it is the hugest of its kind, and throws a childish tantrum at the sight of the slightest criticism of its behavior. It suffices for now, but I still owe my reader at least a one-sentence explanation of why I think Trump should never be even near any public office in this nation. In short, it is his lack of respect for and total absence of any sort of comprehension of the following: the rule of law, the institutions of modern liberal democracies, the international norms and peace-keeping organizations, and the political ethics of our country. With that out of the way, let’s get back on track.

For those who are wary of a second Trump term, it surely came as a sigh of relief when Joe Biden announced that he was exiting the 2024 presidential election race. It is quite remarkable for a winner of a primary to abandon his campaign and relinquish, what is for him, all hopes of ever running for president again. However, it is undeniable that his decision has added impetus to his vice president’s belated and new campaign for president. Kamala Harris is younger, more energetic, and more eloquent than her current boss. She has been polling better than Joe Biden and is showing promising signs of a campaign recovery for her party. The Democratic National Convention was perhaps a sobering moment for many on the fence of the political spectrum as well as, of course, many of those on the Left who had grown increasingly tired of the same lousy rhetoric pandering to this or that tiny group of loud activists who seem to have been so far removed from the mainstream American culture and economic realities of people that they do nothing but provide heaps of content to the Right wing influencers and pundits. The word “privilege” was used by Harris, but only to suggest that it was a privilege to be an American. Though she would be if elected, she did not even once mention that she would become the first woman president in U.S. history. Her speech was one that was aimed at resonating with her fellow countrymen, though to what extent she was successful is not entirely clear. There were no appeals to identity politics that have driven some straight young men to the Right of Center in recent years.

I would like to add that I don’t intend on making more of the DNC than it was. I recognize that many did not watch the convention, and of those who did, only few watched the whole speech of the Democratic candidate. But living in a polarized society such as ours, few people can move the needle just enough to nudge one candidate to the presidency. To what degree was the needle moved, if at all, remains to be seen.

Getting back on track, perhaps it is appropriate to expand further on the point about young men. Why is it that, despite clear lies and constant breach of ethical as well as legal norms and values, Donald Trump still has a solid chance of becoming the U.S. president again? Surely, a great portion of his support comes from mainstream Christianity and in particular Evangelicals. But they have traditionally voted for the more Conservative candidate no matter the party. (Strangely enough, this group has always had strong reservations about “abnormal” family constructs such as gay couples and promiscuous individuals. Trump, however, is the epitome of promiscuity and his sexual history is anything but Christian – Christianity in theory at least). In any case, mainstream Christians are not the swing vote in any election. Who they will vote for in this and the next election can reliably be predicted, namely, the more Conservative candidate. (It should go without mentioning that not all Christians are Conservative voters, much less Trump supporters). The determining votes come from independent voters, whatever their personal religious beliefs. And a great many of these independents are young voters who do not affiliate with any political party. In fact, young voters aged 18-29 tend to be less affiliated with a political party than all other cohorts according to a recent survey by Pew Research Center.⁹ Though traditionally younger voters have tended to side with the liberals, as they do even today,¹⁰ young men comprise a smaller portion of liberal voters.¹¹ This, of course, is nothing new.  Women have been more Progressive than men for a long time, though not by a large margin.¹² But ironically enough, men have been less religious than women for almost as far as the data can go no matter where it is collected from.¹³ (Ironic because religiosity and liberalism are inversely correlated). What has changed is that Gen Z is almost the first generation that has more religious men than religious women.¹⁴ This, in and of itself, may be a statistical anomaly or more likely, as it is my opinion, a temporary reversal. In any case, it is worth examining why this change, transient or otherwise, has occurred. 

Since religiosity is closely associated with Conservatism, the root of that Conservatism is of interest (it is my belief that Conservatism influences religiosity as much as religiosity influences Conservatism). One factor, as I see it, is the climate within which many young heterosexual men have found themselves. This new climate has left the impression on them that they are the obstacle to be dealt with in society while their problems and concerns are by and large brushed aside in the name of achieving “justice” for other groups and their protest against such behavior is often interpreted as an attempt to maintain their “privileges” as if the whole burden of the past injustices lies solely on their shoulders. The mass of their problems, in my opinion, concerns securing a career, and finding a romantic partner in a world where women are increasingly financially independent and place higher standards for their future lovers. So, it is no longer the case that a man of little possessions can win over a woman of no possessions. There is much more that could be said about this and quite a lot of analysis has been done but both my limited expertise in this field and my desire not to bore you compel me not to dig deeper into it. For our purposes, it suffices that the stated problem is a major underlying concern of many young heterosexual men. But where is our man to find any tangible advice? 

Our institutions of higher education, our mainstream media outlets, our corporations, the show business industry alongside Hollywood and their shiny objects of attraction, and the rest of the bulk of the American culture have been engulfed in a new ideology that seems hell-bent on squeezing justice out of some and hand it to others, as if there is only a limited amount of it available for use. That we can simultaneously address the struggles of the marginalized groups and recognize that young heterosexual men also have found themselves discombobulated in the complex modern world with no real guidance should be clear to most of us who care about the well-being of all people here on Earth. Just read the op-ed sections of many media networks, take a look at corporate policies that purportedly seek to be “inclusive,” observe the wrath unleashed on college campuses at the sight of the slightest divergence from the new orthodoxy, and watch, if you can tolerate, the showbiz ceremonies to truly see that the young heterosexual man can barely find a place in this culture for himself. 

Of course, this does not negate the work that still needs to be done for other groups of people. Women are still facing legal and societal battles to gain respect and autonomy, sexual minorities are still not accepted in certain circles and some live in fear, and we are still in the process of a full racial reckoning of this country’s past. All of these are worthy causes. But my assertion is that none of this needs to come at the expense of another group of people. There is plenty of justice to be distributed between us mortals, and more justice for one should not mean less for another. But back to our original question: what happens when one, the young heterosexual man in this case, finds himself with no seat at the table of culture? 

What ends up happening is a story all too familiar. The people who feel neglected will seek alternatives to fill the void. This is one of the reasons why such cartoon characters as Andrew Tate have become a focal point of interest for many young men. This is also why Whatever podcast, which is essentially a streaming platform in the hands of its hosts and producers to belittle women and make them look intellectually and socially inferior to men, has garnered quite an audience among young men who apply this and other podcasts to themselves like soothing agents mostly to numb their own wounds of spectacularly failed lives. This is why Nelk Boys, who for the most part is a group of guys babbling about pop culture, music, and play pranks, are now considered a legitimate source of wisdom by these very same young men. The common theme among all these and many more figures is their emphasis on a surreal, laughable, and almost fantastical form of masculinity. The one in which the “man” is physically strong, intellectually superior by the virtue of his penis (and testicles I dare say), a great charismatic businessman (though what business is not quite clear), a girl magnet, and holds traditional views for the role of women in society. Having been slapped by the palm of reality, the young man finds himself in a peculiar position, one in which he has to convince himself of his intellectual superiority despite his lack of contribution in any meaningful way to society or even to his own life, one in which he has to postpone indefinitely the day he will financially “make it” because the cruelties of the market clash sharply with his ambitions, one in which he will construct a delusional and misogynistic image of women to justify his lack of success with them as opposed to taking the reasonable course of action, that is to change his own attitude towards them. Having achieved none of his initial objectives, he will resort to the one thing he can achieve, so he “hits the gym.” (Although some even give up on this last straw).  

What our young men need is proper guidance, guidance that can only be recognized if the culture at large considers their problems to be as central as the concerns of other groups. Afterall, if a person is suffering from some form of emotional distress, does it really matter if his “kind” used to or continues to have privileges over certain other people? Is the misery of a poor white man anymore alleviated by his recognition of the fact that white men subjugated Blacks and women in the past? Is the loneliness and depression of a heterosexual young man placated at all if he comes to grasp the extent to which homosexuals have had to bear the burden of their dad’s prejudices? If not, and I argue not, and if we take an individualistic view, as I believe we should, then everyone can be covered in our sphere of compassion whatever their race, gender, sexual orientation, or background is. Human love and yearning for justice are not in short supply and need not be rationed, and while at any moment a certain group among us may be more at a disadvantage than another and therefore call for more immediate action or attention, none of us by the sheer accident of birth should be left out. 

I believe, as I always have, that despite its many flaws, the Left of the political aisle is where discussions take place, where self-criticism is a virtue and not a sin, where the battleground of ideas is in full force, and where solidarity reins deep. So, it is on the Left that we must scoot over and make more room for another group of us, the heterosexual young men. The room we grant them could make them feel accepted, not despised, feel included, not ostracized, feel wanted, not mocked, and feel valued, not cut off all the while everyone else keeps their seat at the table. If we fail to take the initiative (or at this point make a response since the initiatives could be said to have been taken by some of the buffoons on the Right), then this culture war over young men could be slowly lost to the wrong people. The supposed epitomes of “masculinity” and “manhood” like Andrew Tate and Elon Musk have nothing of substance to offer the young men except a pernicious attitude of vanity and ego couched in make-believe “success” of the “strong man” of the kind Nietzsche would have possibly approved of if he were even more deranged than he turned out to be at end of his life. The good news, in my opinion, is that the young men can still be won over and led to more reasonable paths. 

As a final note, I must clarify that I do not view the attraction by young men to this new Conservative movement as universal. Young men are still largely Liberal voters, still more irreligious than their older cohorts, many have stable lives, and are no more prone to misogyny and fantasy creation than others before them. Still, the number of them that have been swept in by the “Bro Culture” does at the very least call for some contemplation of underlying causes and a possible solution. The presidency of Donald Trump must be avoided, and the worldview of young men is essential in determining the outcome of this upcoming election. But demagoguery did not start with Trump, nor will it end with him. Thus, if we are to be serious then we need a more thoughtful approach with respect to heterosexual young men, one that is different from the one we are currently practicing. This bizarre landscape of our politics that we happen to find ourselves in is sweeping through the culture and leaving its mark. This mark is especially enlarged among the young men who feel more lost than perhaps ever and wander aimlessly until they stumble upon some “strong” man who will lead them to salvation. Perhaps the issue was not lost on the organizers and speakers at the DNC whose words spoke of our common struggles and the platform did not attempt to alienate our young men. This is a promising augury, and this approach must be further pursued well beyond this election cycle. The inclusion of everyone’s voice in any political movement will not only attract them but enrich the conversation by providing diverse viewpoints. If a group is excluded, it will find refuge elsewhere and that place may not benefit any of us who value the civilized society.

1. Justices rule Trump has some immunity from prosecution – SCOTUSblog ↩︎
2. Trump says he wants to make IVF treatments paid for by government or insurance companies if elected (nbcnews.com) ↩︎
3. Trump campaign reset goes awry in Pennsylvania as he attacks Harris | US elections 2024 | The Guardian ↩︎
4. Trump Walks Back Proposed Medicare, Social Security Cuts Amid Backlash (forbes.com) ↩︎
5. Trump suggests he’s open to cuts to Medicare and Social Security after attacking primary rivals over the issue | CNN Politics ↩︎
6. Russia-Ukraine war can’t be settled in one day, Russia’s UN official says | AP News ↩︎
7. Agenda47: President Trump’s New Trade Plan to Protect American Workers | Agenda47 | Donald J. Trump (donaldjtrump.com) ↩︎
8. Former President Trump says he has a ‘concept of a plan’ to replace the Affordable Care Act (youtube.com) ↩︎
9. Age, generation and party identification of registered voters | Pew Research Center ↩︎
10. See no. 9 ↩︎
11. Party affiliation of US voters by gender, orientation, marital status | Pew Research Center ↩︎
12. See no. 11 ↩︎
13. Men are less religious in more gender-equal countries – PMC (nih.gov) ↩︎
14. With Gen Z, Men Are Now More Religious Than Women – The New York Times (nytimes.com) ↩︎