Democrats can’t mock masculinity and expect men to vote for them

Democrats are making a full-court press to woo men back to the party, with the New York Times recently reporting that donors are considering a $20 million effort to connect with the more “privileged” sex. The plan apparently includes studying the “syntax, language, and content that gains attention and virality in [male] spaces.”

It’s good that the party finally realized that alienating half the electorate is an unwise political strategy. Kamala Harris lost the male vote to President Donald Trump in 2024 by 10 points. The president won 60% of the white male vote, along with 54% of the Hispanic male vote and 21% of the black male vote. Those results are unsustainable.

A party beholden to feminists who think traditional masculinity is toxic will never prioritize the needs of the average American male.

But I have news for donors that will save them from wasting time and money: A party can’t do meaningful outreach to people they resent.

That may sound like a harsh assessment of the left’s relationship to men, but it’s true. What’s also true is that the problems Democrats have with messaging to men are primarily ideological, not rhetorical. That’s because the modern Democratic Party has a broad coalition of voters who hate any expression of traditional masculinity. This includes both liberal and radical feminists, LGBTQ+ activists who want to change the definitions of “male” and “female” altogether, and self-flagellating male “allies” who feel duty-bound to rid themselves publicly of their “toxic masculinity.”

The party’s inability to reach men is a structural — not syntactical — problem.

Men in previous generations, including the white majority, had a home in the Democratic Party. At that time, Democrats campaigned on bread-and-butter issues, such as jobs and education. They still talk about those issues today, but they occupy a much different space within the left’s business model.

Issues like the economy, health care, and even race could be viewed as “expenses” Democrats are willing to pay in order to sell their preferred “products”: abortion, all things related to LGBTQ+ Pride, and climate change.

In fact, progressives are so invested in “transgender rights” that they are willing to throw women under the bus to do so. That’s why Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said he would support boys who identify as girls competing against natal females in sports. Any man watching the left dump its commitment to second-wave feminism in favor of first-wave “theminism” would be a fool to think Democrats would be loyal to him.

RELATED: From feminism to ‘theminism’: Nancy Mace faces liberal fury in Congress

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images. Tom Williams / Contributor | Getty Imageseditsharetrending_up

The modern left prioritizes “marginalized” identities more than anything, which makes straight white Christian males apex oppressors in the left’s intersectional “Hunger Games.” This warped worldview puts Democrats in a bind. They want to win back men, but at the same time, they don’t want to upset the coalition of “oppressed” groups who look to them for protection from the “orange menace” currently in the White House — especially since some of the men they’re courting voted for Trump in 2024.

No one on the left wants to be blamed for bringing in a new batch of men into the party whose land acknowledgments are some version of, “My ancestors were settlers, and I don’t apologize for the country they’ve built.”

The truth is, the party whose symbol is a donkey is only interested in male “mules” — men willing to leverage their male “privilege” on behalf of the feminists, abortionists, and Pride activists who hold all the sway on the modern left. That means a black Christian man who is solidly pro-life has no space in the modern Democratic Party, while a white male feminist wearing a shirt with the slogan “The future is female” is a useful ally.

Men can sense the resentment, and many won’t be swayed by effete influencers who binge Joe Rogan interviews and practice their “bro” lingo in the mirror. A political movement can’t spend decades telling men that their very nature is problematic and then act surprised when the people they’ve been chastising defect in large numbers.

The irony is that when these efforts fail to produce the results the party desires, progressive pundits will respond 95% of the time with the type of preachy scolding from the same bitter “cat ladies” who drove men away from the left in the first place.

This is why any attempts to win young men back to the left will ultimately fail without a major change in the party’s priorities. A party beholden to feminists who think traditional masculinity is toxic will never prioritize the needs of the average American male.