Are Democrats Starting To Realize They Need To Change Their Approach Towards Men?

There are signs that the party is starting to take its gender problems more seriously.

Photo by Hannah Busing on Unsplash

In the days after the 2024 presidential election, I wrote a piece laying out how the Democratic Party has lost credibility with most men. It’s a trend that’s been ongoing for decades, and it has culminated with the Republicans netting a healthy double-digit advantage among male voters.

In that piece, I suggested that one of the reasons why is that Democrats talk to men differently than they do other groups of voters. When it comes to Democratic constituency groups like women or African Americans, the Democrats tell these groups what they will do for them. When they speak to men, they generally tell men what they should do for everyone else.

Men are privileged, progressives remind us, and they should use that privilege to help women, who lack privilege. There is some truth to this narrative. There are powerful and abusive men out there who exploit and mistreat women. Andrew Tate, who recently returned to the United States, is a prime example.

The problem is that most men are not Andrew Tate. They can’t find anything to relate to in the progressive narrative because they know that all kinds of social maladies disproportionately impact them compared to women — from suicide and homicide rates to workplace deaths to mistreatment in the criminal justice system to life expectancy.

But there’s some reason to believe that Democrats may be learning their lesson. Some high-profile members of the party have started humanizing men.

First, Arizona Democratic Sen. Ruben Gallego reminded a New York Times interviewer that Democrats need male votes, too.

NYT: You won Latino men by 30 points in an election in which Trump dominated that group. I know men are a very broad group, but what do you think Democrats have misunderstood about them?

GALLEGO: That we could be working to make the status of men better without diminishing the status of women. A lot of times we forget that we still need men to vote for us. That’s how we still win elections. But we don’t really talk about making the lives of men better, working to make sure that they have wages so they can support their families. I also think some of this is purely psychological — like we just can’t put our finger on it. During my campaign, I noticed when I was talking to men, especially Latino men, about the feeling of pride, bringing money home, being able to support your family, the feeling of bringing security — they wanted to hear that someone understood that need. And a lot of times we are so afraid of communicating that to men, because we think somehow we’re going to also diminish the status of women. That’s going to end up being a problem. The fact that we don’t talk this way to them makes them think we don’t really care about them, when in fact the Democrats on par are actually very good about the status of working-class men. It was a joke, but I said a lot when I was talking to Latino men: “I’m going to make sure you get out of your mom’s house, get your troquita.” For English speakers, that means your truck. Every Latino man wants a big-ass truck, which, nothing wrong with that. “And you’re gonna go start your own job, and you’re gonna become rich, right?” These are the conversations that we should be having. We’re afraid of saying, like, “Hey, let’s help you get a job so you can become rich.” We use terms like “bring more economic stability.” These guys don’t want that. They don’t want “economic stability.” They want to really live the American dream.

Gallego seems to understand something I noted in my November piece: recognizing the problems that men face does not mean you need to “diminish the status of women.” The senator rightly points out that men take pride in being providers for their family and buying status symbols like a big truck. It might sound silly from the outside, but it’s not very different than women who dream of breaking through the glass ceiling and winning ownership of the corner office.

Maryland Democratic Governor Wes Moore sounded similar notes in his State of the State Address:

Lastly, investing in our people means following the data – And the data is telling us that we need to have a greater statewide focus on supporting and elevating our men and boys.

And it’s not just that in Maryland, labor force participation for young men is nearly the lowest it has been in two decades…

It’s also that suicide rates among men under 30 have risen by more than a third since 2010.

Across the country, college attainment levels are the same now for men and boys as they were in 1964.

And Maryland still sends youth under the age of 18 to our state prisons at twice the national rate.

The data is telling us a clear message: We need to better understand and address what’s happening with our men and boys.

I want to be clear: This administration remains steadfast in our support for all Marylanders, regardless of their gender or background.

As the father of a son and a daughter, I want both of my children growing up with all of their God-honoring and God-given opportunities –

But if we want to truly unleash the power of Maryland’s labor force, we need to make sure our men and boys aren’t still falling behind.

I strongly believe our mission to uplift men and boys isn’t in conflict with our values to leave no one behind – it’s in concert with them.

In the words of the great Marylander Frederick Douglass: “It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men.”

Moore’s speech mirrored Gallego’s sentiment — there is no “conflict” between uplifting boys and men and helping underprivileged people more broadly.

Finally, Michigan Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer made a similar appeal in her own State of the State Address she gave this week.

“The last thing any of us want is a generation of young men falling behind their fathers and grandfathers,” she said.

She also linked the fate of men and women.

“As the mom of two smart driven young women and stepmom to three successful young men I know that they’re success is connected to the success of their peers — all of their peers,” she said.

What all three Democratic lawmakers did in these remarks is reject zero-sum thinking. The idea that men and women are playing a zero-sum game has led generations of liberal thinkers to believe that the only reason men might be falling behind is because women are finally able to achieve financial independence and career success. Why should they complain? They had a head start of hundreds of years.

It’s just not that simple. Men are not falling behind just because of the rising success of women. There are specific interventions needed to help men who are unable to adapt to the knowledge economy and who are failing to succeed everywhere from school to the workplace.

These remarks by these Democrats are the first step in acknowledging this reality and rebuilding trust between the Democratic Party and the nation’s men.

But besides acknowledging the plight of men and crafting public policy to deal with their problems, I’d say there’s one additional step that the Democratic Party needs to take.

It has become all too common to demonize and ridicule men in left-liberal spaces — from government to the media. An ambitious Democratic leader needs to do something similar to what Bill Clinton did during the “Sista Souljah moment” and loudly and clearly distance themselves from anti-male rhetoric.

It shouldn’t be any surprise that many people don’t want to vote for a party who they believe dislikes them due to their biology. By acknowledging the plight of men, crafting public policy that benefits male voters, rejecting zero-sum contests between the sexes, and condemning anti-male rhetoric, the Democratic Party may start solving its male voter problem.