My unsolicited advice for Democrats learning to talk to men
Clearly, Democrats have a young man problem — and they've vowed to do something about it. Accordingly, the party is spending $20 million on a special multiyear effort called Speaking With American Men: A Strategic Plan. The project, the New York Times recently reported, will 'study the syntax, language, and content that gains attention and virality in these spaces.'
Yes, really. Hold your laughter.
It's true that leading Democratic figures could use some help on the 'syntax' and 'language' fronts. They might begin to right the ship, on that score, by ditching the well-known gobbledygook gaffes of Joe Biden and the infamous 'unburdening of what has been' of Harris. But the rubber will meet the road for Democrats when it comes to the critical, elusive third category of concern for their new young male outreach effort: content.
To paraphrase a venerable saying, one can put lipstick on a pig but the pig, at the end of the day, is still a pig. And something big has to change for the Democrats. Nor is their problem limited to young men; the party's overall favorability ratings, in recent months, have hit record lows in public polling.
Here, Democrats, is some (entirely) unsolicited advice on steps you might consider taking to become less catastrophically unpopular with young men — and many other Americans too.
On the issue of sexuality and the human person, you might consider beginning your vaunted young male outreach efforts by deigning to properly define what exactly a man is, and by extension, a woman. Indeed, your party's most recent Supreme Court nominee publicly struggled to solve this mystery. It is probably best, before attempting to devise pro-young-man policies, to familiarize yourselves with your target audience. The definition of 'man' as it has existed since the Garden of Eden is a pretty good place to start.
After successfully defining 'man' and 'woman,' you might consider not indulging recurring grievances levied against so-called toxic masculinity. It is generally a good idea, in political outreach, to not hold in dripping disdain the demographic group you are trying to reach. Sure, men have been killing each other since Cain slew Abel, but many of them have also been doing some pretty good things for humanity since right around that same time period. One key to publicly rejecting misandry will be ditching support for diversity, equity and inclusion, which, along with also now being illegal, takes a pretty dim view of men.
On the issue of immigration, you might consider not opening up America's borders to, well, pretty much the whole world — but especially not to young males in search of economic opportunity. Democrats might not have gotten this impression from their sources in the Harvard faculty lounge, but over half of Americans now live paycheck to paycheck. Far too many young men struggle to provide for their families; indeed, many delay marriage in the first place because of finances. Flooding the zone with more wage competition may please the wokerati, but it won't help you regain credibility with American breadwinners.
On the issue of environmentalism, you might consider not so conspicuously sacrificing American energy on the altar of climate alarmism. The young male voter simply wants a fair shot to make a decent living and provide safety and security for his family. The ham-handed restriction of hydrocarbon extraction more than anything else spikes the price of every good or service.
You might think that Trump's tariffs are a threat to price stability, but you'd be wrong — at least so far. The real threat to the fiscal well-being of the median American comes from the price of energy, from which all other prices flow. Maybe, just maybe, don't sacrifice all that in favor of Mother Earth?
The good news for Democrats is that there is a lot of potential upside from their efforts to reach young men. The bad news for Democrats is the same: There's so much to gain precisely because of how unpopular they currently are with that cohort.
Josh Hammer's latest book is 'Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West.' This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. @josh_hammer
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Why Roberts and Gorsuch may decide the Supreme Court's blockbuster transgender sports case
The Supreme Court's decision Thursday to weigh in on transgender sports bans will put two conservative justices in the spotlight in coming months, both because of what they have said in past cases involving LGBTQ rights – and what they haven't. Only two justices have written majority opinions involving transgender Americans – Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch – and both avoided revealing their thoughts about the sports cases last month when, in a blockbuster ruling, the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee's ban on puberty blockers and hormone therapy for trans youth. For the second time in as many years the high court will wrestle with a heated legal dispute involving young transgender Americans at a time when they are facing severe political backlash driven in part by President Donald Trump and conservative states. The court agreed to hear appeals in two related cases challenging laws in West Virginia and Idaho that ban transgender girls and women from competing on women's sports teams – including one that was filed by a middle school student at the time. While the court swerved around fundamental questions about trans rights in last month's decision in US v. Skrmetti, it will be far harder to do so in the sports cases. And that could put enormous focus on Roberts and Gorsuch. 'Even though the court ruled against the transgender plaintiffs in Skrmetti, it did not decide the larger and more important question of whether discrimination based on transgender status triggers more searching judicial review,' said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at Georgetown University Law Center. 'Everything,' Vladeck predicted, 'is going to come down to where Roberts and Gorsuch are.' In some ways, the Supreme Court's 6-3 decision on June 18 upholding Tennessee's ban on certain transgender care was limited. That opinion, written by Roberts, explicitly declined to decide if the law discriminated against transgender youth. Tennessee's policy, Roberts reasoned, instead drew boundaries based on age and medical procedures that were well within a state's power to regulate. That logic avoided thorny questions about whether the law violated the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause if it specifically targeted transgender minors for different treatment. Tennessee's law, Roberts wrote, 'classifies on the basis of age' and 'classifies on the basis of medical use.' But it will be more difficult for the court to duck those broader questions in the sports cases, several experts said. 'It is notable that the court seemed to go out of its way to avoid endorsing the idea that the law discriminated against transgender people and instead found that the Tennessee law had drawn lines based on age and medical diagnoses,' said Suzanne Goldberg, a Columbia Law School professor and an expert on gender and sexuality law. 'The new cases squarely present the discrimination questions in ways that will be hard to avoid,' she said. 'It's important,' she said, 'not to lose sight of the fact that these cases involve kids trying to make their way through school and life like every other kid.' Gorsuch, who was Trump's first nominee to the Supreme Court, joined the majority opinion in the Tennessee case but did not write separately to explain his position. His silence was significant given that one of the key arguments at stake was how – or whether – to apply the landmark 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County that he authored. In that decision, the court ruled that transgender workers are covered by federal protections against discrimination based on sex because discrimination against a transgender person is, by extension, necessarily also discrimination based on sex. The Biden administration and transgender teenagers fighting Tennessee's law asserted that the same logic should apply when it comes to gender identity care bans. But the court has never extended its reasoning in Bostock beyond the workplace, and the decision drew immediate and sharp criticism from the right at the time. John Bursch, a veteran Supreme Court litigator and senior counsel at the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom, predicted that both Roberts and Gorsuch will ultimately back the state bans on transgender people participating in sports that align with their gender identity given their votes in the Tennessee dispute. 'If they were in agreement that Tennessee's law did not discriminate based on gender identity, I would assume that both of them would come to the same conclusion here when it comes to sports,' Bursch said. 'But you never know for sure, and anytime that we go to the court, we assume that all nine justices are in play.' Alliance Defending Freedom is a co-counsel in both sports cases the Supreme Court agreed to hear. 'Our hope is that we would get a unanimous ruling to protect women's sports in favor of both West Virginia and Idaho in their laws,' Bursch added. Other members of the court's six-justice conservative wing – including two who are often decisive votes – have more clearly signaled their thoughts on anti-trans laws. In the Tennessee case, Justice Amy Coney Barrett penned a concurring opinion making clear that she opposed granting transgender status the same anti-discrimination protections that race and sex have under the 14th Amendment. She also was the only member of the court's majority that day to raise sports in an opinion. 'Beyond the treatment of gender dysphoria, transgender status implicates several other areas of legitimate regulatory policy – ranging from access to restrooms to eligibility for boys' and girls' sports teams,' Barrett wrote in an opinion joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. 'If laws that classify based on transgender status necessarily trigger heightened scrutiny, then the courts will inevitably be in the business of 'closely scrutiniz(ing) legislative choices' in all these domains.' Justice Samuel Alito wrote a concurrence arguing against extending Bostock's reasoning to constitutional cases. During oral arguments over Tennessee's law in December, Justice Brett Kavanaugh – another justice who is sometimes seen as a swing vote – mentioned sports as he peppered the lawyer for the Biden administration with skeptical questions about her position. 'If you prevail here,' asked Kavanaugh, who has frequently noted that he coached his daughters' basketball teams, 'what would that mean for women's and girls' sports in particular?' 'Would transgender athletes have a constitutional right, as you see it, to play in women's and girls' sports, basketball, swimming, volleyball, track, et cetera, notwithstanding the competitive fairness and safety issues that have been vocally raised by some female athletes?' Kavanaugh pressed. In response, then-Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar attempted to distinguish the sports cases from Tennessee's law. She noted that some lower courts had already held that the sports bans triggered a higher level of judicial scrutiny. Kavanaugh also dissented from Gorsuch's decision in Bostock. The court's three liberals dissented in the Tennessee case, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor writing that the majority had pulled back from 'meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most' and instead 'abandons transgender children and their families to political whims.' In the West Virginia case, then Gov. Jim Justice, a Republican, signed the 'Save Women's Sports Act' in 2021, banning transgender women and girls from participating on public school sports teams consistent with their gender identity. Becky Pepper-Jackson, a rising sixth grader at the time, who was 'looking forward to trying out for the girls' cross-country team,' filed a lawsuit alleging that the ban violated federal law and the Constitution. The Richmond-based 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that West Virginia's ban violated Pepper-Jackson's rights under Title IX, a federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex at schools that receive federal aid. The court also revived her constitutional challenge of the law. Two years ago, the Supreme Court denied West Virginia's emergency docket request to let it fully enforce its ban. Alito and Thomas dissented from that decision, though the focus of their objection was that neither the Supreme Court nor the 4th Circuit had offered an explanation for their decisions. In Idaho, Republican Gov. Brad Little signed the state's sports ban in 2020. Lindsay Hecox, then a freshman at Boise State University, sued days later, saying that she intended to try out for the women's track and cross-country teams and alleging the law violated the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. A federal district court blocked the law's enforcement against Hecox months later and the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision last year. Idaho appealed to the Supreme Court in July. State officials in West Virginia and Idaho praised the court's decision to take up the cases. 'Idaho was the first state to step out and ban boys and men from competing with girls and women in organized athletics,' Little said on Thursday, describing the law as a 'common sense' policy intended to 'protect the American way of life.' Lawyers for the transgender athletes described the laws as discriminatory and harmful. The Supreme Court will likely hear arguments in the cases later this year or in early 2026 and is expected to hand down a decision by the end of June.
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Responds To Fatal Texas Flash Floods: 'Shocking'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump said the flooding in Texas and deaths was "terrible" and "shocking" as he pledged federal support. The Context At least 24 people were dead and many missing after torrential rains unleashed flash floods along the Guadalupe River in Texas on Friday. Among the missing are at least 23 girls from an all-girls summer camp located on the banks of the river. File photo: President Donald Trump speaks to journalists aboard Air Force One on July 4, 2025. File photo: President Donald Trump speaks to journalists aboard Air Force One on July 4, 2025. Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images What To Know Asked about the floods while speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One as he headed to his New Jersey golf club, Trump said: "It's terrible. The floods? It's shocking. "They don't know the answer yet as to how many people, but it looks like some young people have died." Asked if the government would be sending federal aid, the president said: "Oh yeah, we'll take care of them. We're working with the governor. We're working with the governor. It's a terrible thing." At a news conference on Friday evening, Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, who is acting governor since Texas Governor Greg Abbott is traveling out of state, said he had received multiple calls from the White House. "I've talked to several people at the White House," Patrick said. "The president sent the message, 'Whatever we need, we will have.'" Patrick said there were 400 to 500 people on the ground helping in the response. He added that 14 helicopters and 12 drones were also being used. Kerr County Sheriff Larry Leitha said on Friday night that 237 people had been rescued so far. What People Are Saying Patrick said during a news conference on Friday night: "I'm asking the people of Texas, do some serious praying this afternoon—on your knees kind of praying—that we find these young girls and that they're only unaccounted for because they're somewhere that we don't know yet but that they're alive and safe." Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem wrote on X, formerly Twitter, that the U.S. Coast Guard "is punching through storms to evacuate Americans from central Texas. "We will fly throughout the night and as long as possible. This is what the men and women of the U.S. Coast Guard do." What Happens Next Rescue operations remain underway. Reunification centers have been set up at Ingram Elementary School in Ingram and at The Arcadia Live theater in Kerrville. The Red Cross is assisting with reunification, and anyone who is missing a loved one is asked to call 800-733-2767.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump megabill: Who will benefit in midterms -- Republicans or Democrats?
Fresh off a bruising fight over passage of President Donald Trump's massive tax and policy bill, Republicans and Democrats are now waging a battle over selling it to Americans. Trump celebrated the passage of the bill during a rally in Iowa on Thursday. "Every major promise I made to the people of Iowa in 2024 became a promise kept," he said of the bill's passage. Republicans see a lot to celebrate after weeks of delicate negotiations to get both chambers on the same page, with little room for error. MORE: Trump admin live updates: House narrowly passes megabill, sending it to president's desk The package of $4.5 trillion in tax breaks would make permanent the tax code changes Trump signed into law during his first term, and include new campaign pledges, such as no taxes on tips for some workers, and a 'senior deduction' of $6,000 for older Americans making up to $75,000 annually. It also includes billions in new defense spending and $350 billion for border security and immigration enforcement, to advance the administration's mass deportation efforts. "Republicans should be proud of passing this bill, because it delivers on a lot of the things that they ran on, and that the president ran on," Mark Bednar, a Republican strategist who served as an aide to former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., told ABC News. "That's what Republicans would be very wise to lean in on, going into this recess, going into August and the following year." MORE: 'Immoral': Democrat Hakeem Jeffries blasts Trump megabill in record-breaking, 8-plus-hour speech Democrats searching for a message after last November have seized on the package's gradual changes to safety net programs, such as Medicaid and food stamps -- through a combination of work requirements and tax changes. Nearly 12 million Americans would lose health coverage, and 3 million would not receive SNAP benefits under the legislation, according to initial estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Overall, the CBO estimated the measure would add $3.4 trillion to the deficit over the next decade. Democratic Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., who spoke against the bill on the House floor for nearly nine hours Thursday, told the stories of Americans who he said could be impacted by safety net cuts. "Shame on the people who've decided to launch that kind of all-out assault on the health and the well-being of everyday Americans," he said. For their part, Republicans have challenged estimates of the overall impact of the package on the national debt. And they have argued that work requirements, if implemented properly, would weed out abuse in safety net programs. MORE: The 2 House Republicans who voted no on Trump's sweeping domestic policy bill According to a June poll from Quinnipiac University, 29% of voters supported the bill, while 55% opposed it. The same poll showed that registered voters were evenly split on the issue of work requirements on able-bodied Medicaid recipients without dependents: 47% in favor of the new requirements, and 46% opposed. A mid-June Fox News poll found similar results: 59% of registered voters said they oppose the bill, while 38% of them favored it. About half of voters in that poll thought the bill would hurt them and their families, while 40% said they did not understand the bill very much, or at all. Some Democratic leaders and officials believe the combination of tax cuts and potential changes to some Americans' health care coverage could allow the party to recapture the anger and anti-Trump backlash that helped the party reclaim the House in 2018, after Republicans passed their tax package and repeatedly failed to repeal Obamacare. "It's going to be very important for the Democrats to define, for the electorate and for voters, exactly who's most impacted by these Medicaid cuts, and in particular, what the longer term impacts of all the debt are actually going to be," said Dan Sena, a Democratic strategist who oversaw the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2018. But the midterms may not be exact parallels. Heading into 2018, Republicans were defending 25 districts that voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. MORE: How Trump's megabill could affect Medicaid and who could lose coverage Today, 13 Democrats represent districts carried by Trump last year, while just three Republicans represent districts won by former Vice President Kamala Harris. Eight years ago, Democrats largely opposed Trump's legislative agenda. But this time around, some Democrats have offered support for some of his policies, including the new provision for no taxes on tips. Democrats also acknowledge they face a different Republican Party in 2025 -- one that is more in step with Trump, and one that, despite some sharp policy debates, ultimately backed his top legislative priority. That's not to say there weren't exceptions: Democrats pointed to the dissent of Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., who slammed the bill's Medicaid provisions, and its potential impact on his home state. His comments led to criticism -- and the threat of a primary challenge - from Trump. When the dust settled, Tillis voted against the bill in the Senate, but also announced he would not run for re-election. Speaking at the Iowa rally on Thursday, Trump suggested Republicans can use the megabill to their advantage in the midterms. 'With all of the things we did with the tax cuts and rebuilding our military, not one Democrat voted for us," Trump said. "And I think we use it in the campaign that's coming up -- the midterms, because we've got to beat them."
