"In other words, they don’t define themselves by their victimization but by their aspiration. "
Exactly, it aligns with the theory that collectivist academics in the 80s and 90s realized their 'eat the rich' story which worked for much of the 20th century was dieing. Aspirations were trumping victimization. In response these academics created Critical Theory, the oppressor/oppressed story as a replacement for 'eat the rich.' And now their replacement story is failing.
A great framing. It reminds me of how groups take back words like queer, or the n word. Men aspring to be better men and admiring those ahead of them.
I also appreciate the framing around the tribal game. Play it directly, win and help your tribe win. Instead of passive bleeding in cultural stretgh relative to the blue church.
Very provocative post. I like the finish. Make them stronger. How do you do that? Many on the opposite side are in a cult like state-while at the same time accusing the other side of being in a cult! I don't know that I agree with the scorched earth policy that Trump and many Trump followers advocate-see his recent tweet about Nikki Haley money people.
I think that Republicans since Reagan have always been a big tent party.
I am not sure the GOP has any independent positive vision of itself. It exists solely in reactive opposition to the left and Democrats. This essentially renders it a second party of grievances, it is just a different set of grievances. If the GOP could forge an identity independent of Trump and grievance based on some kind of traditional ideal it would probably be a more successful party. The problem is we get cartoon characters like Vivek and BAP being referenced here while avoiding the name of the most important name in the GOP; Trump.
Love him or hate him, to talk about the modern GOP without referencing him once is telling. It is to avoid the actual current driving force because it contradicts the desired narrative. I don’t see the GOP offering any kind of healthy masculine framework in practice or rhetoric. It seems to be the home of a lot of hurt egos and wound licking with an unhealthy dose of false machismo.
Some really salient points here, Balaji. For me, this was evidenced during the Trump presidency when many men (and women) "loved" the abject bravado he displayed daily. It was a 180 from the rather measured, high brow, hyper polite Obama presidency and, I believe, spoke directly to the masses of people in the interior states consistently overlooked and maligned by the elites. The perceived "feminization" of men dates back to the metrosexuality trend of the '90s that has morphed into the current, palpable confusion among men about masculinity, specifically, how to act, what's considered acceptable behavior, and when does masculinity cross the line into "toxic." While the #metoo movement started as a great and important tool to weed out predators, it has since become a weapon for many to "take down" any man who doesn't fit a specific archetype...that no one can actually agree upon as acceptable. As such, it has felt like hunting season on men, easily, for the past 5 years and has resulted in a generation of confused, emasculated, anxious men who are isolating from one another, balking at relationships, communicating less as a survival mechanism, and retreating to clandestine practices (e.g., trolling, nefarious hacking, addictions) that feel empowering, don't include judgment or rules of any kind, and that supply enough dopamine hits to fill the psychological and physiological void from lack of masculine connection.
From what I see, I concur that the Republican party has become the party of strong men because it appears to be the only place and outlet where men can be and are expected to be "men." And it's becoming the one place where masculinity, in all its forms, is low-key celebrated. We've all seen how dangerous this can be in practice without some form of sane, strong leadership, and direction. Sadly, we're about to experience it again.
I believe for us to survive as a society, we're going to have to shirk all of these labels for a bit and, as you suggest, bench together and find some commonalities again, as men, so that we can extract ourselves from this weird-ass vortex we've fallen into and build one another back up to some form of masculinity that's "easy" and serves society as a whole. Then, we can go back to celebrating our differences and (ugh) weaponizing those on the Hill and on the socials.
Republicans are set as clear heroes in this narrative - strong, masculine. Democrats are the antagonists - weak, playing victim.
Then Conn Carroll (article quoted as #2 item and the source of the marital status/gender graph) picks on single women as the main fans of Democrats. The author doesn’t even try to explain why single women vote this way, instead he dives into a very charged topic of the destruction of the nuclear family institution, and congratulates Democrats on this - since more single women mean more voters for Democrats. He isn't attempting to offer any thoughts on the reason of the family institution demise either, but instead chooses to implicate and insinuate with the headline: “No one benefits more from the destruction of the American family than the Democratic Party”. Who had committed the crime? The one who benefits the most.
He then goes on to describe how detrimental single female parenthood is for boys (without male role model they tend to have lower academic performance, more criminal behaviour risk), that in turn per the further extrapolations of the author, produces inferior partners that women don’t find equal and, hence, choosing to not procreate and stay single. Which will make them vote for Democrats (mechanics again not explained).
This focus on single women and their “crimes” - being a worse parent, failing at mating, paired with the very headline of Balaji’s article where women are presented in a strictly supporting role (the party is of strong men, and women are there to love them) does a great job at actually obscuring the role of the superhero men of the Republican party.
For example, asking why the single parenthood is overwhelmingly women? Where are the men who have fathered those children now condemned to lesser opportunities in life due to the absence of a great male figure?
Per the same presented data set we see that the majority of unmarried men vote for Republicans. So do the married ones (remarried?) So the majority of men is republican. Did the strong men leave their children? Or the rates of divorced men, or men abandoning their children is significantly higher among registered Democrats?
A fact that receives absolutely zero attention within this discourse about gender and marital component, yet has a huge importance (and, boy, this omission is so telling): Republican men believe they have the right to control women’s body which is not only incredible insulting and oppressive by sentiment, but also results in a lifetime of implications for women of being a primary caretaker, limited career opportunities, lower income, etc. is a very obvious, elephant size factor, why many women swear off republican agenda.
Really disappointed with this…whatever this was. The dems suffer from wokeness that creeps into their ideology. But the rights fascist autocratic slide is papered over with its own ‘mind virus’ - romanticization and fetishizing the ignorant low IQ pseudo intellectual as some sort of ‘Everyman’ ‘working class upstart’. Look no further than the fat redneck (often racists, but not important for this point) who peeked in highschool and is now upset at everyone BUT himself that the world passed him by. He votes against education, healthcare, the working man and free markets every time. If you love this ideology, Arkansas, Mississippi, bama, are all free to move to.
I was surprised to read this work of Balaji. I generally respect and appreciate his perspective. However, this sounds more like wishful thinking than any sort of reality. Self-awareness requires one to ask whether their political party is any better than the opposition’s. In the US, both parties play the victim card because it’s a compelling narrative for their constituents. Everyone wants to blame someone else for their woes. Republicans need look no further than Trump and his doting supporters to see the level of victim consciousness in the Republican party. The Republican party provides no legitimate role model for men; to be fair, neither does the Democratic party.
The most glaring example of Balaji’s poor assessment is in suggesting that the “the state is (women’s) surrogate provider and protector.” In fact, women are under attack by both parties. The Republican party has decided that it knows best when it comes to women’s bodies. The Democratic party has decided that trans rights are more important than women’s rights. Women aren’t out in the world claiming entitlement, the way that deadbeat men are. Women are getting educated, building their careers and looking for ‘strong men’ who are in short supply despite many Republican men believing that they belong in the category.
Franky, the Republican party cannot claim to be the party of strong men as long as it continues to promote a victim claiming, victim blaming, misogynistic xenophobe as their spokesperson. The majority of Republican leadership have both condemned and supported him depending on how it served their interest. Is this the type of leadership that Balaji claims as ‘strong men’?
The Gender/Marital status poll says it was an Exit poll. I wonder if anyone not affiliated with a party was excluded. This is particularly important since it is the unaffiliated voter that determines election outcomes, I suspect.
This CNN poll is consistent with the poll in the post with regard to gender and marital status.
The Republican Party is at this moment redefining itself.
The old guard establishment republicans are being phased out (McConnell/Gram/Haley). It’s becoming much more populist with or without Trump.
Many middle class Dems are coming over, black men, independents, etc.
The democrat party is a barbell of wealthy well educated and the poor that rely on them. This co-dependency is what u mean by the party of victims. Everyone on the right is to blame and Trump is Hitler.
The reality is - we can no longer trust or rely on the Judicial system.
Prior to Covid lockdown - women could live alone and be in charge of their lives. First responders like Police, Firefighters and Ambulance could be relied on for quick and efficient security, aid and health checks.
Today - this is no longer the case - funding is scarce, staff shortages, and staff safety are at risk.
So, for all those young single women out there who think they can live in this upside down world - be my guest. When trouble comes - it will be a MAN that you will be looking for - just like in the caveman days.
This is simple, yet profound. I've never read it framed explicitly this way, but it makes a lot of sense.
The liberal men on the other side are not going to appreciate this, so get ready for the attacks... (lol)
"In other words, they don’t define themselves by their victimization but by their aspiration. "
Exactly, it aligns with the theory that collectivist academics in the 80s and 90s realized their 'eat the rich' story which worked for much of the 20th century was dieing. Aspirations were trumping victimization. In response these academics created Critical Theory, the oppressor/oppressed story as a replacement for 'eat the rich.' And now their replacement story is failing.
Great post, Balaji. Glad your podcast is back. The new CEO of NPR is a prime example of the Democrats’ base and values: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/commissar-npr-ceo-katherine-maher-she-her
A great framing. It reminds me of how groups take back words like queer, or the n word. Men aspring to be better men and admiring those ahead of them.
I also appreciate the framing around the tribal game. Play it directly, win and help your tribe win. Instead of passive bleeding in cultural stretgh relative to the blue church.
Very provocative post. I like the finish. Make them stronger. How do you do that? Many on the opposite side are in a cult like state-while at the same time accusing the other side of being in a cult! I don't know that I agree with the scorched earth policy that Trump and many Trump followers advocate-see his recent tweet about Nikki Haley money people.
I think that Republicans since Reagan have always been a big tent party.
If those numbers are correct, how are the Democrats ever able to win?
Great post by the way!
I am not sure the GOP has any independent positive vision of itself. It exists solely in reactive opposition to the left and Democrats. This essentially renders it a second party of grievances, it is just a different set of grievances. If the GOP could forge an identity independent of Trump and grievance based on some kind of traditional ideal it would probably be a more successful party. The problem is we get cartoon characters like Vivek and BAP being referenced here while avoiding the name of the most important name in the GOP; Trump.
Love him or hate him, to talk about the modern GOP without referencing him once is telling. It is to avoid the actual current driving force because it contradicts the desired narrative. I don’t see the GOP offering any kind of healthy masculine framework in practice or rhetoric. It seems to be the home of a lot of hurt egos and wound licking with an unhealthy dose of false machismo.
Some really salient points here, Balaji. For me, this was evidenced during the Trump presidency when many men (and women) "loved" the abject bravado he displayed daily. It was a 180 from the rather measured, high brow, hyper polite Obama presidency and, I believe, spoke directly to the masses of people in the interior states consistently overlooked and maligned by the elites. The perceived "feminization" of men dates back to the metrosexuality trend of the '90s that has morphed into the current, palpable confusion among men about masculinity, specifically, how to act, what's considered acceptable behavior, and when does masculinity cross the line into "toxic." While the #metoo movement started as a great and important tool to weed out predators, it has since become a weapon for many to "take down" any man who doesn't fit a specific archetype...that no one can actually agree upon as acceptable. As such, it has felt like hunting season on men, easily, for the past 5 years and has resulted in a generation of confused, emasculated, anxious men who are isolating from one another, balking at relationships, communicating less as a survival mechanism, and retreating to clandestine practices (e.g., trolling, nefarious hacking, addictions) that feel empowering, don't include judgment or rules of any kind, and that supply enough dopamine hits to fill the psychological and physiological void from lack of masculine connection.
From what I see, I concur that the Republican party has become the party of strong men because it appears to be the only place and outlet where men can be and are expected to be "men." And it's becoming the one place where masculinity, in all its forms, is low-key celebrated. We've all seen how dangerous this can be in practice without some form of sane, strong leadership, and direction. Sadly, we're about to experience it again.
I believe for us to survive as a society, we're going to have to shirk all of these labels for a bit and, as you suggest, bench together and find some commonalities again, as men, so that we can extract ourselves from this weird-ass vortex we've fallen into and build one another back up to some form of masculinity that's "easy" and serves society as a whole. Then, we can go back to celebrating our differences and (ugh) weaponizing those on the Hill and on the socials.
Republicans are set as clear heroes in this narrative - strong, masculine. Democrats are the antagonists - weak, playing victim.
Then Conn Carroll (article quoted as #2 item and the source of the marital status/gender graph) picks on single women as the main fans of Democrats. The author doesn’t even try to explain why single women vote this way, instead he dives into a very charged topic of the destruction of the nuclear family institution, and congratulates Democrats on this - since more single women mean more voters for Democrats. He isn't attempting to offer any thoughts on the reason of the family institution demise either, but instead chooses to implicate and insinuate with the headline: “No one benefits more from the destruction of the American family than the Democratic Party”. Who had committed the crime? The one who benefits the most.
He then goes on to describe how detrimental single female parenthood is for boys (without male role model they tend to have lower academic performance, more criminal behaviour risk), that in turn per the further extrapolations of the author, produces inferior partners that women don’t find equal and, hence, choosing to not procreate and stay single. Which will make them vote for Democrats (mechanics again not explained).
This focus on single women and their “crimes” - being a worse parent, failing at mating, paired with the very headline of Balaji’s article where women are presented in a strictly supporting role (the party is of strong men, and women are there to love them) does a great job at actually obscuring the role of the superhero men of the Republican party.
For example, asking why the single parenthood is overwhelmingly women? Where are the men who have fathered those children now condemned to lesser opportunities in life due to the absence of a great male figure?
Per the same presented data set we see that the majority of unmarried men vote for Republicans. So do the married ones (remarried?) So the majority of men is republican. Did the strong men leave their children? Or the rates of divorced men, or men abandoning their children is significantly higher among registered Democrats?
A fact that receives absolutely zero attention within this discourse about gender and marital component, yet has a huge importance (and, boy, this omission is so telling): Republican men believe they have the right to control women’s body which is not only incredible insulting and oppressive by sentiment, but also results in a lifetime of implications for women of being a primary caretaker, limited career opportunities, lower income, etc. is a very obvious, elephant size factor, why many women swear off republican agenda.
Really disappointed with this…whatever this was. The dems suffer from wokeness that creeps into their ideology. But the rights fascist autocratic slide is papered over with its own ‘mind virus’ - romanticization and fetishizing the ignorant low IQ pseudo intellectual as some sort of ‘Everyman’ ‘working class upstart’. Look no further than the fat redneck (often racists, but not important for this point) who peeked in highschool and is now upset at everyone BUT himself that the world passed him by. He votes against education, healthcare, the working man and free markets every time. If you love this ideology, Arkansas, Mississippi, bama, are all free to move to.
I was surprised to read this work of Balaji. I generally respect and appreciate his perspective. However, this sounds more like wishful thinking than any sort of reality. Self-awareness requires one to ask whether their political party is any better than the opposition’s. In the US, both parties play the victim card because it’s a compelling narrative for their constituents. Everyone wants to blame someone else for their woes. Republicans need look no further than Trump and his doting supporters to see the level of victim consciousness in the Republican party. The Republican party provides no legitimate role model for men; to be fair, neither does the Democratic party.
The most glaring example of Balaji’s poor assessment is in suggesting that the “the state is (women’s) surrogate provider and protector.” In fact, women are under attack by both parties. The Republican party has decided that it knows best when it comes to women’s bodies. The Democratic party has decided that trans rights are more important than women’s rights. Women aren’t out in the world claiming entitlement, the way that deadbeat men are. Women are getting educated, building their careers and looking for ‘strong men’ who are in short supply despite many Republican men believing that they belong in the category.
Franky, the Republican party cannot claim to be the party of strong men as long as it continues to promote a victim claiming, victim blaming, misogynistic xenophobe as their spokesperson. The majority of Republican leadership have both condemned and supported him depending on how it served their interest. Is this the type of leadership that Balaji claims as ‘strong men’?
Great post Balaji--you’re spot on, as usual!
The Gender/Marital status poll says it was an Exit poll. I wonder if anyone not affiliated with a party was excluded. This is particularly important since it is the unaffiliated voter that determines election outcomes, I suspect.
This CNN poll is consistent with the poll in the post with regard to gender and marital status.
https://edition.cnn.com/election/2022/exit-polls/national-results/house/0
Good insight. It’s just more nuanced.
The Republican Party is at this moment redefining itself.
The old guard establishment republicans are being phased out (McConnell/Gram/Haley). It’s becoming much more populist with or without Trump.
Many middle class Dems are coming over, black men, independents, etc.
The democrat party is a barbell of wealthy well educated and the poor that rely on them. This co-dependency is what u mean by the party of victims. Everyone on the right is to blame and Trump is Hitler.
The reality is - we can no longer trust or rely on the Judicial system.
Prior to Covid lockdown - women could live alone and be in charge of their lives. First responders like Police, Firefighters and Ambulance could be relied on for quick and efficient security, aid and health checks.
Today - this is no longer the case - funding is scarce, staff shortages, and staff safety are at risk.
So, for all those young single women out there who think they can live in this upside down world - be my guest. When trouble comes - it will be a MAN that you will be looking for - just like in the caveman days.
Time to wake up ladies.
BJ, you should always mention... MOVE!
https://twitter.com/morganwarstler/status/1725545949617942991