Some free commonsense advice for Democrats about winning back men
You don't need a Ph.D. in sociology to know that there is one group in America you can mock, smear and stereotype with impunity — without facing cancelation, outrage or any serious blowback.
That group? Men.
For years now, we've been told that men suffer from 'toxic masculinity.' We are accused of 'mansplaining,' assumed to be 'racists,' 'sexists' and God knows what else. At some point, 'man' became a four-letter word.
I bring this up because Democrats are now planning to spend $20 million trying to win back male voters they lost in 2024. The initiative is called 'SAM' — short for 'Speaking with American Men: A Strategic Plan.'
Here's a free tip for the strategists: If you want to win back men, maybe start by telling your cultural allies to stop calling them bigots. Case in point: On 'The View,' host Joy Behar suggested that instead of spending $20 million to win back male voters, Democrats should use the money to teach 'men not to be such sexists.'
Imagine if a man had said something like that about women? You can't even tell a lame joke about women drivers anymore without risking cancelation. But label men 'sexists' on national television? That's comedy gold.
Then there's the DNC's own website, with its long list of 'Who We Serve.' It includes: African Americans, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, Latinos, gay, lesbian and transgender folks, seniors, veterans, union members and women. You get the picture, right? There's a group for everyone — except, curiously, men.
Let's get this straight: Democrats want to win back men, but won't even acknowledge them on a list of who they serve? Brilliant strategy.
Do men hold power in this country? Sure, some do. But what kind of power does a white, working-class coal miner in West Virginia have — just because he's a man? Or the blue-collar guy living paycheck to paycheck. How is he powerful?
Memo to the cultural elite: Not all men are running Fortune 500 companies. A lot of them are just trying to keep the lights on.
If Democrats truly want men back in the fold, they might want to stop treating them like a nasty virus nobody wants to get close to. Because right now, it sure doesn't look like men are welcome.
Aaron Solis, writing on Medium, nailed it. 'Society — and feminists in particular — have decided it's perfectly acceptable to generalize men, but not women,' he wrote. 'If the roles were reversed, and men created equally negative, subjective terms to generalize women, the backlash would be overwhelming.'
That's the kind of insight Democrats could have gotten for free — no need to spend $20 million.
Post-elect surveys show that more than half of male voters under 30 backed Trump over Harris. That includes about 60 percent of white male voters, roughly one-third of Black male voters and about half of young Latino men. That's not a fluke. That's a warning sign.
Yes, there are many reasons voters switch parties. It's never just one thing. But the way Democratic elites talk about men — the sneering, the stereotyping — definitely plays a role. And until they face up to that, no slick $20 million campaign is going to change the outcome.
And if that sounds like 'mansplaining' — too bad!
Bernard Goldberg is an Emmy and an Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University award-winning writer and journalist. He is the author of five books and publishes exclusive weekly columns, audio commentaries and Q&As on his Substack page. Follow him @BernardGoldberg.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Key RFK Jr advisers stand to profit from a new federal health initiative
Federal health officials are seeking to launch a 'bold, edgy' public service campaign to warn Americans of the dangers of ultra-processed foods in social media, transit ads, billboards and even text messages. And they potentially stand to profit off the results. Ultra-processed foods are a fixation for the US health and human services (HHS) secretary, Robert F Kennedy Jr, a vaccine skeptic who believes the US industrialized food supply is a 'primary culprit' behind many chronic diseases. 'We need to fix our food supply. And that's the number one thing,' Kennedy said at his confirmation hearing. Bringing healthier foods to Americans has proved to be one of the most resonant issues of Kennedy's 'Make America healthy again' (Maha) campaign – and arguably the only one that Democrats and Republicans agree on in principle. Kennedy has spent most of his tenure as health secretary dismantling key components of US vaccine infrastructure, instituting mass firings and defunding chronic disease prevention programs, such as for tobacco use. The secretary has been less successful in reigning in food makers. Food advocates have described voluntary changes between the government and manufacturers 'disappointing'. Kennedy was criticized by congressional Republicans for targeting agricultural pesticides in the 'Maha' report before it was even released – showing the limits of Republicans appetite for regulation, then the report itself was riddled with errors, likely generated by AI. 'The campaign's creative content will turn heads, create viral moments on social media, and – above all else – inspire Americans to take back their health through eating real food,' said a document published by the federal government that described the campaign. The campaign is expected to cost between $10m to $20m, according to documents. Anyone seeking to apply for the award will have a quick turnaround – the deadline is 26 June. 'The purpose of this requirement is to alert Americans to the role of processed foods in fueling the diabetes epidemic and other chronic diseases, inspire people to take personal responsibility for their diets, and drive measurable improvements in diabetes prevention and national health outcomes,' it continued. The new public relations campaign also highlights the Trump administration's unconventional approach to hiring – including its reliance on special government employees. A key adviser to Kennedy, Calley Means, could directly benefit from one of the campaign's stated aims: popularizing 'technology like wearables as cool, modern tools for measuring diet impact and taking control of your own health'. Calley Means is a senior Kennedy adviser, and was hired as a special government employee to focus on food policy, according to Bloomberg. He founded a company that helps Americans get such wearable devices reimbursed tax-free through health savings accounts. Casey Means is Calley's sister. She also runs a healthcare start-up, although hers sells wearable devices such as continuous glucose monitors. She is Kennedy's nominee for US surgeon general, and a healthcare entrepreneur whose business sells continuous glucose monitors – one such wearable device. Calley Means's company also works with Casey's company. Due to Calley Means's status as a special employee, he has not been forced to divest from his private business interests – a situation that has already resulted in an ethics complaint. Consumer advocates, such as the non-profit group Public Citizen, had warned such hiring practices could cause conflicts of interest. HHS did not respond to a request for comment about Calley Means's private business interests, or his role in crafting the publicity campaign. Although the publicity campaign focuses on the ultra-processed foods connection to diabetes, at least one high profile nutritionist was queasy about its focus. 'The ultra-processed foods – some of those include breakfast cereals that are ultra-processed because they are fortified with vitamins,' said Walter Willett, a professor of epidemiology and nutrition at the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health. 'Those are good if they're whole grain breakfast cereals and whole grain breads,' he said. Ultra-processed foods are generally recognized as sodas, salty snacks and frozen meals engineered to be shelf-stable, convenient and inexpensive. Such foods are associated with increased risk of type 2 diabetes – or insulin resistance. The mechanism by which such foods could increase risk of diabetes is unknown, a problem that extends in part from the 'heterogeneous category' of foods that the ultra-processed category encompasses. The publicity campaign proposal does not venture into defining the category, even as Kennedy has fixated on it 'poisoning the American people'. 'When you say processed foods you don't envision a Coke in your brain, and that's the biggest problem,' said Willett, who added that most public service campaigns are carefully crafted and tested for effectiveness.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Fetterman offers support for Trump decision to bomb Iran
Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) is offering support for President Trump's decision to bomb Iran, standing out from a number of other Democrats who have criticized the military action. 'As I've long maintained, this was the correct move by @POTUS,' Fetterman wrote in a post on X that linked to a statement from Trump announcing the decision. 'Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities,' Fetterman continued. I'm grateful for and salute the finest military in the world.' Fetterman since Hamas launched an attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023 has been a vocal supporter of Israel, and has at times criticized his own party over the Middle East. His remarks in the immediate aftermath of the bombing campaign, as a result, are unsurprising. But they stood apart from other Democrats who criticized Trump's decision as unconstitutional. For example, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) criticized Trump for vowing to bring peace to the Middle East but failing, saying he had 'misled the country about his intensions.' 'The risk of war has now dramatically increased, and I pray for the safety of our troops in the region who have been put in harm's way,' Jeffries wrote in a statement. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) both criticized the strikes as unconstitutional. Fetterman, however, tied himself to Trump by retweeting the president's Truth Social message announcing the attacks on the three nuclear sites in Iran. 'We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan,' Trump posted on Truth Social. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Women and men diverge more than ever on support for abortion rights, poll shows
Three years after the fall of Roe v Wade and months after an election that heavily focused on the fight over abortion rights, men and women have never diverged more on their support for access to the procedure, according to new polling from Gallup released Monday. Sixty-one percent of women now identify as 'pro-choice', but only 41% of men say the same, Gallup found. The same percentage of women identified as 'pro-choice' in 2022, just after the decision to overturn Roe was leaked, but at the time, 48% of men also did so. Prior to Roe's collapse, men and women were never more than 10 points apart from one another on the issue, according to decades of Gallup polling. Men and women are also in record disagreement over whether abortion is moral, as 57% of women and 40% men say that it is. Just 41% of men say that abortion should be legal in all or most circumstances, while 56% of women say the same. These gender gaps are likely less due to post-Roe changes in men's attitudes towards abortion than in changes in women's attitudes, said Lydia Saad, Gallup's director of US social research. Specifically: women have become a lot more supportive of abortion since Roe fell. In 2021, 52% of women and 45% of men identified as 'pro-choice'. 'In general, we see that with abortion, that the party that wants to change the status quo is the one that has more energy on the issue,' Saad said. 'For years, it was more the pro-life respondents who said that they will only support a candidate who shares their views on that issue. Whereas, since 2022, we've seen it flip.' Sudden political upsets do have the power to dramatically change people's beliefs, Saad said. Typically, however, those changes don't last and people revert to their norm views within a few years. Men's declining support for abortion may thus be a sign that they are reverting to their norm – but Saad was surprised women are still so energized by the issue. 'A line had been crossed for women,' Saad said. 'If you were generally supportive of abortion rights before, you became much more so.' Similarly, men who identify as Democrats have, like women, become much more likely to back abortion rights. Between 2020 and 2021, 63% of Democratic men said that they believed abortion should be legal in most circumstances; as of 2025, 78% of Democratic men say the same. Saad is not exactly sure why support for abortion rights is dwindling among men. Although this is the lowest level of support among men for the 'pro-choice' label in a decade, she is not convinced that this decline will continue. 'It's more just a out of sight, out of mind issue for men,' Saad said of abortion's legality. 'Whereas for women – it's just been more salient.' At this point, it's difficult to tell whether men are becoming more actively opposed to abortion or whether they are simply becoming more conservative overall, Saad said. Men are already more likely to be Republicans, and Republicans typically oppose abortion rights. A mere 19% of Republican men think abortion should be legal in most circumstances. Saad suspects Gallup's findings may be tied to shifts in the political views of young men, who proved to be surprisingly conservative in the 2024 election. Fifty-six percent of men between the ages of 18 and 29 voted for Donald Trump. 'We have to see where this goes,' Saad cautioned. 'If it's sustained, then we would really have to take a close look at why.'
