The Men's Party
Republicans are becoming the party of men.
This post struck a nerve on Twitter, gaining more than 2.5M views in 24 hours. It’s a pattern I’ve been noticing for years, an emerging organic consensus between men of many different ethnic groups and backgrounds. It has immediate implications for the right’s messaging, positioning, and self-conception. And it may be how conservatives and libertarians align across borders, regardless of race, on a set of common propositions around the value of masculinity.
Republicans are becoming the men’s party. They are repositioning to present themselves as the party of strong men and the women that love them.
This is both obvious and non-obvious.
Obvious because the Republicans have been attacked for decades as the party of “rich straight white men”, so of course they’re the men’s party! Non-obvious because this actually means a distinct shift in emphasis relative to the recent past. Let us count the ways.
1) First, the Republicans are no longer the party of “white men”, but anti-anti-white men. It’s a big tent; you just need to extend the common courtesy of not attacking white conservatives and libertarians on the basis of race.
2) Second, it’s not just the party of men. Because married men, married women, and single men all vote Republican. As of 2022, only single women vote >50% Democrat; the state is their surrogate provider and protector.
3) Third, it’s now the party of strength. That could be actual physical strength in its Bryan Johnsonian or BAPian variations. It could be financial strength like Thiel or technological strength like Elon. It could be prowess with arms like Erik Prince or prowess with words like Vivek. Or it could simply be the moral strength to assert that the X and Y chromosomes exist.
4) Fourth, it’s not really the “multiracial working class party” that Sohrab Ahmari has been talking about. The Republicans certainly are more multiracial and arguably more working class than the past…but that’s because they’ve pulled in men from those groups who respect strength and are repelled by victimology.
A Republican today could well be a working class carpenter, but wants to get wealthier some day, and maybe run their own business. And they might be nonwhite, but they don’t define themselves by their race nor make a habit of attacking white people as white.
In other words, they don’t define themselves by their victimization but by their aspiration. Democrats are the party of victims, Republicans are the party of men.
5) Fifth, modern Republicans are ultra-libertarian. It’s about individual ownership of firearms, redecentralization of power to the states, deregulation, Bitcoin, and anti-institutionalism. There is some continuity with Reaganism, but far less emphasis on military service and far less trust in centralized authority. Much more sigma male than company man.
6) Perhaps the single biggest thing about redefining the Republicans as primarily the men’s party is that it ensures they are always competitive. No matter what happens demographically, the percentage of men is flat at roughly 50% — and everyone has strong men they admire and respect. That gives all-weather traction and global appeal.
So, that draws the political battle lines. On one side, strong men of many ethnicities and the women that love them. On the other side…the opposite of that.
What should we do with weak people? Help them become strong.
I thought this was obvious too, but the question makes me realize it’s not. I guess folks expect a cartoon villain answer like “let the weak die, it’s their problem” or even “the strong do what they will, the weak do what they must.”
But helping others become strong is the right strategy. It’s really just the teach-a-man-to-fish proverb. You can reconceptualize it as enlightened self interest, as win-and-help-win. Essentially you want to help people in your tribe level up. That helps you and it helps them. It could mean benching with them, as per the image above. It could mean investing in them, taking shared risk and shared reward. Or it could be training them as an apprentice. Or some combination of the above.
The point is that you win and they win. By strengthening others, you strengthen your community, and thus indirectly yourself.
Note that this isn’t pure kumbaya. It’s almost like arms control — you can’t help just anyone become strong. Democrats certainly aren’t hiring or promoting Republicans; they don’t help people outside their tribe. So the win-and-help-win strategy only works with people who (a) admit they’re weak in a given area, (b) have the humility and self-discipline to become strong, and most importantly (c) share your values.