An interesting argument. I've gone from being a swing voting centrist to more overtly pro-Republican during Trump's arc (the main things I'm more right wing on are crime, immigration, and wokeness). Walz doesn't exactly tempt me to vote for a Democrat the way a Tulsi Gabbard in 2020 would. I can see the Democrats trying to tone things down during an election campaign, but much like Biden, I see a doubling down on wokeness once power is secured.
Kamala Harris actually scares me a bit. If she somehow ends up with a House and Senate majority, I could easily see them abolishing the filibuster, "reforming" the Supreme Court, making election administration much more favorable to Democrats, cutting away at free speech as has been done in Europe, doing an immigration amnesty that would greatly alter the balance of power amongst the electorate, and pushing even harder on wokeness. It all could be sold as fortifying the country from ever having to face a threat from the populist right again. In the end the nationalization of the California quasi-one party state model -- but without the Federal government and Supreme Court to reign in some of their worst impulses.
Imagine a different world where Biden comes in in 2021 wanting to deflate everything that lead to Trump. Shifts social / cultural policy back to the center, a 1990's style crackdown on crime (including holding the summer 2020 rioters to the same standard as the J6ers), leaving the Trump era immigration restrictions in place, depoliticizing election administration by supporting standards both sides considerer fair and would meet general international standards, doing some industrial policy but without all the carve outs for "The Groups" like the racial and gender quotas that stymied the Taiwanese chip fab plant in Arizona, and picking some fights with the excesses of the left. Then I could believe a Democrat pivot was possible. Instead, anything they say now will just come across as disingenuous.
Harris in particular already has a well established record of flip flopping and telling people whatever they want to hear.
A good case on trade and industrial policy, but I'd again have to disagree on the wokeness part. No matter what Biden may have signaled on it (or perhaps provided cover for...), his administration certainly moved in a very woke / DEI direction.
I'll use a food metaphor... let's say there's a restaurant with an amazing burger. But they insist on putting mayonnaise on it, you hate mayo, and you can't scrape any of it off. And there's another restaurant that has an average burger, but at least it comes with a great barbecue sauce. You have to weigh the trade offs. So for me, no matter how good a burger Biden potentially made, he still insisted on putting mayo on it. So for me that was a red line.
I guess this all comes down to that meme of the Democrats moving left and a person staying in the same place. George W Bush was the perfect storm of a politician where he was almost the opposite to where I stood. Since then the Republicans have moved far closer to me on "cross pressured" cultural and economic issues while the Democrats have lurched further away. But I don't begrudge anyone doing the math and deciding Harris is the better candidate for them.
Biden could not " holding the summer 2020 rioters to the same standard as the J6ers". The J6ers committed their crimes on Federal land in the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. The 2020 rioters were on in municipal or state jurisdictions and would be charged at the state or local level. Biden can play no role her.
A Democratic party that could act as you are projected would be one that brought charges against Trump in 2021 and prosecuted him in 2022. But the Dems did nothing like this, even though they would feel it was warranted in doing this given the risk they (say) they believe Trump poses. This is not a party that is likely to try to eliminate the opposition, since they haven't done so.
Not to be complacent, but remember the Senate needs 60 votes for big things, and if the Dems get 60 in the Senate (seems unlikely), those 60 would likely include Dem senators from purple and even red states, who would face huge pressure not to go along with anything too radical like court-packing.
There is a lot of inertia and status quo bias built into the system for better or worse. Thus for example Congress hasn't been able to do anything "big" on immigration for a long time in either direction (neither a wall, nor amnesty). I cautiously hope that the Dems wouldn't get a big enough majority to overcome that inertia.
It only takes a simple majority to do away with the filibuster. With Sinema and Manchin gone, there will be far less resistance to filibuster reform in a next Dem senate majority. Many of things we take for granted exist only because of the filibuster and the Supreme Court.
I think you are correct in that Trump is taking his base for granted. And maybe Walk plays well among the over-50 demographic that stays up to date with their covid boosters, but I would assume that type already votes Democrat.
But I have a hard time believing that the white working class gets excited about this guy who is essentially selected in the role of a token white person. If anything he represents the humiliation of whites, who now have stooped to the level of being pandered to on the basis of their skin color. I don't see how that attracts anyone with dignity.
I think you're objectively correct about why Walz was selected, but remember there are a lot of vibes-based low information swing voters who will see someone talk on TV and vote because they "liked" how the candidate looked and talked.
I think in general people are making way too big a deal about Walz’s — and all the pres/VP candidates’ — past policy decisions and platforms. When it comes right down to it a president’s influence is much more about vibes and personality than most people will admit. The President has to get their agenda through the Congress and public opinion and usually can’t unilaterally make things happen. When people complain about something a candidate believed in an interview or two a few years ago, it don’t much care. What I DO care about it their deportment. What kind of person are they? Do I approve of them as a symbol of America’s “personality” to the world? Like it or not, the president signals to the nation “this is what we’re like now”. I think history will look back on Trump’s caustic way as emblematic of, and a major cause of, this depressing, negative era. Having a nice guy and a woman who laughs a lot in the White House couldn’t be a better tonic for the country right now, regardless of any difficult-to-pass-anyway policy stances.
I think you're right about this, but I definitely disagree about Kamala trying to make a speech about boys/men. That's a terrible idea. It would not matter WHAT she said, they don't want to hear a woman tell them anything about themselves. It doesn't fly. Just like women do not appreciate whenever men attempt to make that type of speech about them, it's just not a good idea.
All she would need to do is simply be friendly and not blame things on them, such as not repeating long-busted myths about things like the wage gap. I think that would be sufficient to move the needle by that 1-2%. I don't think it should be hard for her to seem like she genuinely likes white guys, given that it's true. At least, she married one, and they seem to like each other quite a lot, are physically affectionate and always smiling and laughing when together (unlike certain other Presidential contenders whose wives seem to openly disdain and hate their husband's guts).
That one exists, for men and women in same industry and position, and same tenure. Gap is because of shorter time in workforce and different industries, not bc of sex discrimination.
That seems rather counter-factual. Care to provide citations?
Because I’ve seen & dug into several “wage gap is a myth” assertions. Every time they fall apart, typically either cherry-picked framing or misidentifying a symptom (bias against hiring women for certain types of roles) as the natural reason for lower income of women.
When you control for job title, hours worked, industry, and tenure, the gap drops to 99 cents on the dollar. The commonly cited stats are just comparing average or median earnings overall, which is clearly silly. https://www.payscale.com/research-and-insights/gender-pay-gap/
Besides it just not being believable bc it would be such an easy lawsuit if any company literally paid different wages for the same position by gender. Example is that Utah, where I live, has the highest supposed gender "wage gap" in the country. And legal profession, where I work, has the highest "wage gap" of all professions. Yet no law firm pays differential rates by gender. Male attorneys just bill more hours, that's it. I get monthly financial reports at my firm detailing every employee's logged hours, collections, and pay, and this is blatantly obvious right in the monthly data. Also it's mostly the outlier psychos who work all the time that create the skew in hours anyway...those outliers are almost always men.
That's not true there are plenty of employment attorneys who will take plaintiff suits for free on a commission basis. I don't perceive sexism in hiring or retention. Everyone has their anecdotes but I just don't see it, and if anything there is just as much preference going both ways, I have female clients seek me out bc they specifically want a female attorney and they hire all female service providers (CPA, brokers, etc). In general employers like to pay the lowest amount they can which I believe was what Trump was joking about. If your wife works in tech specifically, maybe there's an issue there, bc I hear women in tech complain a lot about sexism. Though people and social skills in general seems to be a problem in that sector, which is strongly overrepresented by men who are madly in love with their own intellect and rude to everyone they seem below them, which is everyone. Some of this is highly sector dependent and also companies can't control what their customers want so in some cases it's the customers and not the company that drives such things, for example in sales positions.
For those of us that support Trump's instincts but are fully aware that he's basically a moron, Vance was exactly what was needed: an intelligent, ideological successor who can carry the torch and *improve* upon what are only now "vibes-based" currents in American Right Populism.
For Harris -- who is quite obviously *sub-moronic*, but extremely ideological -- Walz was a wise choice because he does the "Joe Biden from 20 years ago" thing, where he's your friendly uncle.
Yep. Good post, and good points. For myself, personally, I am repulsed at a fundamental level by the culture of Intersectionality (i.e., our shocking, contemporary, and blatant flirtation with a new round of "virtuous" sexism and racism), and so cannot even begin to engage with a political party whose platform rests squarely on it as a "taken-for-granted" tenet. But the article's perspective is sound, and the tactic can certainly work.
I wasn't aware that Friday Night Lights was a big hit with women and gay guys, but regardless I'm a straight guy and thought it was great, as much as I love Jeff's clever takeoff on the title. Hell, Walz was evidently the one who came up with the meme "weird", so you never know. For what it's worth, football has never been more popular, and maybe the only sport (college and pro) that crosses gender and sexual identity lines in big numbers. Walz is clearly comfortable in his own skin and certainly was't the shiny choice everyone was expecting, but still water runs deep and I think it may turn out to be a brilliant choice. And Jeff, thank you again for another incredibly insightful perspective, and for bringing attention to Richard Reeves' brilliant book.
Thanks Riley - I think you'd enjoy that book if you get the chance. I don't know many gay guys (present company excluded) who watched "Friday Night Lights," but in any case it was a great show all around. Loved it.
The Friday Night Lights reference is great but the show was mostly enjoyed by white women and gay guys. All of these tactics use straight white guys but are not for us. They are marketing a type of guy who is antiquated in his interests (do many guys still watch football?) and futuristic in his ability to satisfy female ideals of civility (still holds the door but wants a girl with a degree). It would be great to move past our contemporary identity politics but I don’t personally know straight guys who are going to get psyched up by these tactics.
Thanks for reading and commenting. I agree with your instinct not to rely on shallow tropes and tactics in appealing to men, but I think you're overlooking the broader strategic point. Do you disagree with me that there is an identity play happening beneath the surface, or are you saying that you do see it but believe it won't have any effect? (As for Friday Night Lights, it ranked #2 among women and #7 among men 18-49.)
I’m not 100% I understand the question but to state my position, I think that all of these identity elements regarding masculinity and whiteness are present (although a white woman VP wouldn’t work for democrats because white men know they are not on our side and regularly weaponize client groups against white men).
Having said that it would correctly feel like window dressing. What substantive policy position would be pushed to help up us? If you entered the job market anywhere near 2008, the economy would have been completely retooled to fuck you as a straight white guy and you would be pushing 40. To upset the feeling of too little, too late, they would have to have something other than a white gig with a pulse. After watching decades of representation without any positive change because of it, people are appropriately skeptical of these totemic gestures.
Regarding Friday Night Lights, do you know how many more women than men were watching when it aired? Also regarding syndication, are contemporary streams held at that old ratio? I w pop his suspect they would skew female for rewatching but am just making things up here.
Forget about Friday Night lights (lol), I agree the policy issues are what matter. That's why I was wishcasting for her to give a speech on men's issues combined with a policy platform. Hell, I'd like Trump to do the same.
Many of the policy issues that would help relate to mental illness/suicide/overdose and labor economics / trade schools, etc. I don't have a full platform in mind. Reeves has some suggestions in his book.
The important point is that BOTH CANDIDATES develop proposals to address male malaise and related issues, and compete on these issues rather than hand-waving or suppressing them.
Sorry just saw this one—epistolary fun on substack! I agree. The need is there. I just don’t trust politics to deliver. Thanks for your thoughts, Jeff. Always fun.
2008? Pushing 40? You seem to have a bullseye on my particular situation 😂. But yeah, one major advantage of Trump now is having a much more favorable job market come next year. Populism giving space for a counter-elite, the fourth turning... Would be great to have some real agency for a change.
I think I found the confusion on FNL. The early search ranking is for DirecTV users only…
During the hour of its premiere, “Friday Night Lights” ranked No. 7 amid all of basic cable available to DirecTV viewers. (That note is important: DirecTV is measuring its competition based on its subscriber base.) Within the 18- to 49-year-old demographic, “Friday Night Lights” ranked No. 2 with women and No. 7 with men, the company said.
"Harris and Walz are well-positioned to woo men in general, especially white men. "
I just don't know where to begin with this.
Look, I have voted Democrat for President since Bill Clinton. I abstained in 2020.
I'm telling you straight up that photo of Walz on the floor, sitting with legs as a kindergarten teacher does...
This Walz is not a man I relate to. Like zero. My feeling is strong and has nothing to do with his policies.
I'll take RFK's bear story over Walz's crisscross applesauce any day of the week. And I'll take Trump if that's what it takes to send a message to the elite about their plans for this country.
I’d love to believe you’re right about Harris going after the male vote. It would certainly be a first, given that there is not a single political issue being discussed today that is particular to the needs of men, the way issues like reproductive right, affirmative action, and sexual harassment and abuse are particular the needs of women. And you would think that, being a woman, Harris would know she needs to make a direct and forceful appeal to men. But I don’t think there’s a chance in hell she will do that.
My guess is she picked Walz mainly to shore up her progressive base. Which, if true, is astonishing, given that shoring up her base is the only thing she has done to this point. So I can’t imagine that the black woman who has given more speeches to other black women, especially college-educated black women (three to black sororities alone), than she has to any other demographic group, would suddenly turn around and start appealing to working-class white men.
No, I’m afraid Harris is going to take the Hillary Clinton approach, by just assuming that “Women’s issues are men’s issues.” She will then spend millions upon millions of dollars going after every imaginable demographic group, while not spending a dime appealing to (quite literally) half of the electorate. Then, like Clinton before her, she will blame her lack of male support on misogyny and sexism and all the rest.
The stupidity of it just boggles the mind. But that is what’s likely to happen. And largely as a result of that, Trump will win in November.
The extent to which the left has just completely checked out of policy debate this time around is still surprising to me. The person who said they were picking their vote based on whether someone seems "like a dad" vs "angry", or "my kind of guy", seems to sum this philosophy up perfectly.
I think the sort of people who might consider voting for Harris/Walz don't really believe the position of president or VP matter, or don't believe they should matter, when it comes to policy. They are figureheads who broadcast the American vibe, both domestically and abroad, and are basically like the British King or Queen in that they are meant to be avatars for an abstracted and idealized American. Actually deciding things is best left to unknown committees of unknown people in agencies you've never heard of, but who are surely the nation's top people.
And there's something to this view. Biden is clearly gone, America is basically without a President and whoever is actually making decisions is completely unknown. This doesn't bother the left in the slightest. I suspect they actually like it. Things seem to tick along after all. So where's the problem?
The problem is that there's this constitutional document that everyone is supposed to agree to, which says that the POTUS does matter and does make decisions. By setting things up so the position of President is rendered worthless the left are continuing to trample over the constitutional arrangement that theoretically lets them share power peacefully with others.
The whole process of making politics worthless is much further along in the UK than the USA, as both Labour and the Conservatives have been on board with outsourcing Parliamentary powers to the so-called quangos (quasi non-governmental organizations), i.e. supposedly "independent" committees of technocrats who are amazingly always left wing. We're now seeing at the moment where that path leads. People must be able to vote for policies through politicians. Reducing everything to generic vibes and identity groups isn't merely icky, it's actually dangerous.
Seems to kind of be ignoring the last 30 years to say that the Democrats are the side with a problem of not taking policy seriously... The Democrats remain the party of the wonks. They have so many policies that they always have to argue over what the prioritize in the narrow windows they have power. Every time they get a trifecta, some meaningful reform package gets passed, which reflects whatever the internal politicking identified as the priority for that given legislative session.
Meanwhile, Republicans are like a dog chasing the mail truck, and despite claiming to support fiscal responsibility whenever they want to block Democratic policy proposals, every time they get a trifecta they find themselves yet again saying, "oh, uh... let's cut taxes again I guess?" They literally didn't even put out a party platform in 2020.
To expect a specific presidential campaign operation to run on policy is a relatively recent and silly phenomenon. Yes, the presidency is an important job, and we should take the president seriously not just as a figurehead, but as an executive. An /executive/, not a legislator. If you want to talk policy, get involved in the races for your state's senators, or your district's congressional representative. The smaller the scale, (i.e. house, or even better, look at state legislature, or city council), the more power your voice has. Advocating for a candidate in your local congressional /primary/ is really the place where your voice has leverage, since in a lot of "safe" districts, the general election is just kind of a rubber-stamping of whichever candidate won the local party's primary.
Doing horse race culture war punditry on the internet is just entertainment, and the attention paid to the presidency is insanely disproportionate to its actual importance relative to the legislature.
I said _this time around_. We agree that in 2020 it was to some extent reversed. One might argue that it was because of incumbency (the platform was implicitly: what we're doing now but more of it).
But this time it's the Republicans with the platform, and Harris who doesn't have one. You say "They have so many policies that they always have to argue over what the prioritize in the narrow windows they have power" but this time around they seem to have none, or Harris seems to make positions up on the spot during speeches. Maybe that's because she only just became the candidate. We'll see how things shake out.
I think you are mostly correct about this, however, the President is actually NOT supposed to be making many decisions, other than on foreign policy. Making decisions about domestic policy is supposed to be the job of Congress, they're the ones with constitutional authority to adopt and amend laws -- not the President. They just haven't, because Congress has been too evenly split to pass anything the past two decades, other than in crises, and since 2000 each President has usurped more and more executive power (something the GOP used to be fervently against, BTW).
The President is meant to be the leader of their party, right? So the members of Congress are meant to take their policy lead from that leader, at least if they gain a majority.
I'd be truly impressed if Harris addressed the educational consequences of sex differences in neurodevelopment in a public speech. The probability of this is near zero for several reasons.
“… bringing up the BLM riots and other issues in Minnesota that occurred under Walz’s watch.”
The deeper you dig on that the better Walz looks from a centrist viewpoint. I don’t mean Trump’s praise of his handling, although ironically that’s a kind of shorthand proxy for the real story.
However that Trump audio is extremely helpful because the longer story requires nuanced explanation & something I suspect Walz himself doesn’t want to do, throwing the mayor & PD under the bus. I get the strong sense he’d much rather bite his tongue on that part which is important to fully understand the timeline.
An interesting argument. I've gone from being a swing voting centrist to more overtly pro-Republican during Trump's arc (the main things I'm more right wing on are crime, immigration, and wokeness). Walz doesn't exactly tempt me to vote for a Democrat the way a Tulsi Gabbard in 2020 would. I can see the Democrats trying to tone things down during an election campaign, but much like Biden, I see a doubling down on wokeness once power is secured.
Kamala Harris actually scares me a bit. If she somehow ends up with a House and Senate majority, I could easily see them abolishing the filibuster, "reforming" the Supreme Court, making election administration much more favorable to Democrats, cutting away at free speech as has been done in Europe, doing an immigration amnesty that would greatly alter the balance of power amongst the electorate, and pushing even harder on wokeness. It all could be sold as fortifying the country from ever having to face a threat from the populist right again. In the end the nationalization of the California quasi-one party state model -- but without the Federal government and Supreme Court to reign in some of their worst impulses.
Thanks Jarlis. Your personal perspective and trajectory are interesting. I can understand the concerns about Harris.
Imagine a different world where Biden comes in in 2021 wanting to deflate everything that lead to Trump. Shifts social / cultural policy back to the center, a 1990's style crackdown on crime (including holding the summer 2020 rioters to the same standard as the J6ers), leaving the Trump era immigration restrictions in place, depoliticizing election administration by supporting standards both sides considerer fair and would meet general international standards, doing some industrial policy but without all the carve outs for "The Groups" like the racial and gender quotas that stymied the Taiwanese chip fab plant in Arizona, and picking some fights with the excesses of the left. Then I could believe a Democrat pivot was possible. Instead, anything they say now will just come across as disingenuous.
Harris in particular already has a well established record of flip flopping and telling people whatever they want to hear.
Biden fulfilled much of Trump's 2016 platform with the exception of immigration. Bidenism and Trumpism are not that different. See https://jeffgiesea.medium.com/the-trumpist-case-for-biden-276e7a1c37eb
A good case on trade and industrial policy, but I'd again have to disagree on the wokeness part. No matter what Biden may have signaled on it (or perhaps provided cover for...), his administration certainly moved in a very woke / DEI direction.
I'll use a food metaphor... let's say there's a restaurant with an amazing burger. But they insist on putting mayonnaise on it, you hate mayo, and you can't scrape any of it off. And there's another restaurant that has an average burger, but at least it comes with a great barbecue sauce. You have to weigh the trade offs. So for me, no matter how good a burger Biden potentially made, he still insisted on putting mayo on it. So for me that was a red line.
I guess this all comes down to that meme of the Democrats moving left and a person staying in the same place. George W Bush was the perfect storm of a politician where he was almost the opposite to where I stood. Since then the Republicans have moved far closer to me on "cross pressured" cultural and economic issues while the Democrats have lurched further away. But I don't begrudge anyone doing the math and deciding Harris is the better candidate for them.
Biden could not " holding the summer 2020 rioters to the same standard as the J6ers". The J6ers committed their crimes on Federal land in the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. The 2020 rioters were on in municipal or state jurisdictions and would be charged at the state or local level. Biden can play no role her.
A Democratic party that could act as you are projected would be one that brought charges against Trump in 2021 and prosecuted him in 2022. But the Dems did nothing like this, even though they would feel it was warranted in doing this given the risk they (say) they believe Trump poses. This is not a party that is likely to try to eliminate the opposition, since they haven't done so.
Not to be complacent, but remember the Senate needs 60 votes for big things, and if the Dems get 60 in the Senate (seems unlikely), those 60 would likely include Dem senators from purple and even red states, who would face huge pressure not to go along with anything too radical like court-packing.
There is a lot of inertia and status quo bias built into the system for better or worse. Thus for example Congress hasn't been able to do anything "big" on immigration for a long time in either direction (neither a wall, nor amnesty). I cautiously hope that the Dems wouldn't get a big enough majority to overcome that inertia.
It only takes a simple majority to do away with the filibuster. With Sinema and Manchin gone, there will be far less resistance to filibuster reform in a next Dem senate majority. Many of things we take for granted exist only because of the filibuster and the Supreme Court.
I think you are correct in that Trump is taking his base for granted. And maybe Walk plays well among the over-50 demographic that stays up to date with their covid boosters, but I would assume that type already votes Democrat.
But I have a hard time believing that the white working class gets excited about this guy who is essentially selected in the role of a token white person. If anything he represents the humiliation of whites, who now have stooped to the level of being pandered to on the basis of their skin color. I don't see how that attracts anyone with dignity.
I think you're objectively correct about why Walz was selected, but remember there are a lot of vibes-based low information swing voters who will see someone talk on TV and vote because they "liked" how the candidate looked and talked.
I think in general people are making way too big a deal about Walz’s — and all the pres/VP candidates’ — past policy decisions and platforms. When it comes right down to it a president’s influence is much more about vibes and personality than most people will admit. The President has to get their agenda through the Congress and public opinion and usually can’t unilaterally make things happen. When people complain about something a candidate believed in an interview or two a few years ago, it don’t much care. What I DO care about it their deportment. What kind of person are they? Do I approve of them as a symbol of America’s “personality” to the world? Like it or not, the president signals to the nation “this is what we’re like now”. I think history will look back on Trump’s caustic way as emblematic of, and a major cause of, this depressing, negative era. Having a nice guy and a woman who laughs a lot in the White House couldn’t be a better tonic for the country right now, regardless of any difficult-to-pass-anyway policy stances.
To your point, I thought the “joy” line in the speech yesterday was powerful.
I think you're right about this, but I definitely disagree about Kamala trying to make a speech about boys/men. That's a terrible idea. It would not matter WHAT she said, they don't want to hear a woman tell them anything about themselves. It doesn't fly. Just like women do not appreciate whenever men attempt to make that type of speech about them, it's just not a good idea.
All she would need to do is simply be friendly and not blame things on them, such as not repeating long-busted myths about things like the wage gap. I think that would be sufficient to move the needle by that 1-2%. I don't think it should be hard for her to seem like she genuinely likes white guys, given that it's true. At least, she married one, and they seem to like each other quite a lot, are physically affectionate and always smiling and laughing when together (unlike certain other Presidential contenders whose wives seem to openly disdain and hate their husband's guts).
Which myth about the wage gap, are you referring to?
That one exists, for men and women in same industry and position, and same tenure. Gap is because of shorter time in workforce and different industries, not bc of sex discrimination.
That seems rather counter-factual. Care to provide citations?
Because I’ve seen & dug into several “wage gap is a myth” assertions. Every time they fall apart, typically either cherry-picked framing or misidentifying a symptom (bias against hiring women for certain types of roles) as the natural reason for lower income of women.
When you control for job title, hours worked, industry, and tenure, the gap drops to 99 cents on the dollar. The commonly cited stats are just comparing average or median earnings overall, which is clearly silly. https://www.payscale.com/research-and-insights/gender-pay-gap/
Besides it just not being believable bc it would be such an easy lawsuit if any company literally paid different wages for the same position by gender. Example is that Utah, where I live, has the highest supposed gender "wage gap" in the country. And legal profession, where I work, has the highest "wage gap" of all professions. Yet no law firm pays differential rates by gender. Male attorneys just bill more hours, that's it. I get monthly financial reports at my firm detailing every employee's logged hours, collections, and pay, and this is blatantly obvious right in the monthly data. Also it's mostly the outlier psychos who work all the time that create the skew in hours anyway...those outliers are almost always men.
And “easy lawsuit” is wildly naive. Trump himself declared on national TV that women were great hires because you could just pay them less.
Hell, my wife even on the cusp of menopause was fielding explicit [blatantly illegal] questions about whether she was planning on having more kids.
Not remotely feasible to take legal action on that sort of stuff.
That's not true there are plenty of employment attorneys who will take plaintiff suits for free on a commission basis. I don't perceive sexism in hiring or retention. Everyone has their anecdotes but I just don't see it, and if anything there is just as much preference going both ways, I have female clients seek me out bc they specifically want a female attorney and they hire all female service providers (CPA, brokers, etc). In general employers like to pay the lowest amount they can which I believe was what Trump was joking about. If your wife works in tech specifically, maybe there's an issue there, bc I hear women in tech complain a lot about sexism. Though people and social skills in general seems to be a problem in that sector, which is strongly overrepresented by men who are madly in love with their own intellect and rude to everyone they seem below them, which is everyone. Some of this is highly sector dependent and also companies can't control what their customers want so in some cases it's the customers and not the company that drives such things, for example in sales positions.
That’s exactly what I’m talking about, you’re using the widespread sexism in hiring & retention as the excuse. 🙄
For those of us that support Trump's instincts but are fully aware that he's basically a moron, Vance was exactly what was needed: an intelligent, ideological successor who can carry the torch and *improve* upon what are only now "vibes-based" currents in American Right Populism.
For Harris -- who is quite obviously *sub-moronic*, but extremely ideological -- Walz was a wise choice because he does the "Joe Biden from 20 years ago" thing, where he's your friendly uncle.
I found a typo! Since I can't comment, that's the only comment I can make.
thanks and fixed — feel free to comment, always value your pov
Yep. Good post, and good points. For myself, personally, I am repulsed at a fundamental level by the culture of Intersectionality (i.e., our shocking, contemporary, and blatant flirtation with a new round of "virtuous" sexism and racism), and so cannot even begin to engage with a political party whose platform rests squarely on it as a "taken-for-granted" tenet. But the article's perspective is sound, and the tactic can certainly work.
I wasn't aware that Friday Night Lights was a big hit with women and gay guys, but regardless I'm a straight guy and thought it was great, as much as I love Jeff's clever takeoff on the title. Hell, Walz was evidently the one who came up with the meme "weird", so you never know. For what it's worth, football has never been more popular, and maybe the only sport (college and pro) that crosses gender and sexual identity lines in big numbers. Walz is clearly comfortable in his own skin and certainly was't the shiny choice everyone was expecting, but still water runs deep and I think it may turn out to be a brilliant choice. And Jeff, thank you again for another incredibly insightful perspective, and for bringing attention to Richard Reeves' brilliant book.
Thanks Riley - I think you'd enjoy that book if you get the chance. I don't know many gay guys (present company excluded) who watched "Friday Night Lights," but in any case it was a great show all around. Loved it.
Hi Jeff, I wanted to share this article from the NewYorker last year where I became familiar with Richard Reeves and his work.
What’s the Matter with Men?
I immediately bought that book you talked about. Looking forward to reading it!
Awesome. I'll be curious what you think about it.
The Friday Night Lights reference is great but the show was mostly enjoyed by white women and gay guys. All of these tactics use straight white guys but are not for us. They are marketing a type of guy who is antiquated in his interests (do many guys still watch football?) and futuristic in his ability to satisfy female ideals of civility (still holds the door but wants a girl with a degree). It would be great to move past our contemporary identity politics but I don’t personally know straight guys who are going to get psyched up by these tactics.
Thanks for reading and commenting. I agree with your instinct not to rely on shallow tropes and tactics in appealing to men, but I think you're overlooking the broader strategic point. Do you disagree with me that there is an identity play happening beneath the surface, or are you saying that you do see it but believe it won't have any effect? (As for Friday Night Lights, it ranked #2 among women and #7 among men 18-49.)
I’m not 100% I understand the question but to state my position, I think that all of these identity elements regarding masculinity and whiteness are present (although a white woman VP wouldn’t work for democrats because white men know they are not on our side and regularly weaponize client groups against white men).
Having said that it would correctly feel like window dressing. What substantive policy position would be pushed to help up us? If you entered the job market anywhere near 2008, the economy would have been completely retooled to fuck you as a straight white guy and you would be pushing 40. To upset the feeling of too little, too late, they would have to have something other than a white gig with a pulse. After watching decades of representation without any positive change because of it, people are appropriately skeptical of these totemic gestures.
Regarding Friday Night Lights, do you know how many more women than men were watching when it aired? Also regarding syndication, are contemporary streams held at that old ratio? I w pop his suspect they would skew female for rewatching but am just making things up here.
Forget about Friday Night lights (lol), I agree the policy issues are what matter. That's why I was wishcasting for her to give a speech on men's issues combined with a policy platform. Hell, I'd like Trump to do the same.
Many of the policy issues that would help relate to mental illness/suicide/overdose and labor economics / trade schools, etc. I don't have a full platform in mind. Reeves has some suggestions in his book.
The important point is that BOTH CANDIDATES develop proposals to address male malaise and related issues, and compete on these issues rather than hand-waving or suppressing them.
Sorry just saw this one—epistolary fun on substack! I agree. The need is there. I just don’t trust politics to deliver. Thanks for your thoughts, Jeff. Always fun.
2008? Pushing 40? You seem to have a bullseye on my particular situation 😂. But yeah, one major advantage of Trump now is having a much more favorable job market come next year. Populism giving space for a counter-elite, the fourth turning... Would be great to have some real agency for a change.
*would suspect they would skew.
I think I found the confusion on FNL. The early search ranking is for DirecTV users only…
During the hour of its premiere, “Friday Night Lights” ranked No. 7 amid all of basic cable available to DirecTV viewers. (That note is important: DirecTV is measuring its competition based on its subscriber base.) Within the 18- to 49-year-old demographic, “Friday Night Lights” ranked No. 2 with women and No. 7 with men, the company said.
https://archive.nytimes.com/mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/07/a-small-satellite-audience-for-friday-night-lights/
Yes. Perhaps your instincts are off.
"Harris and Walz are well-positioned to woo men in general, especially white men. "
I just don't know where to begin with this.
Look, I have voted Democrat for President since Bill Clinton. I abstained in 2020.
I'm telling you straight up that photo of Walz on the floor, sitting with legs as a kindergarten teacher does...
This Walz is not a man I relate to. Like zero. My feeling is strong and has nothing to do with his policies.
I'll take RFK's bear story over Walz's crisscross applesauce any day of the week. And I'll take Trump if that's what it takes to send a message to the elite about their plans for this country.
I’d love to believe you’re right about Harris going after the male vote. It would certainly be a first, given that there is not a single political issue being discussed today that is particular to the needs of men, the way issues like reproductive right, affirmative action, and sexual harassment and abuse are particular the needs of women. And you would think that, being a woman, Harris would know she needs to make a direct and forceful appeal to men. But I don’t think there’s a chance in hell she will do that.
My guess is she picked Walz mainly to shore up her progressive base. Which, if true, is astonishing, given that shoring up her base is the only thing she has done to this point. So I can’t imagine that the black woman who has given more speeches to other black women, especially college-educated black women (three to black sororities alone), than she has to any other demographic group, would suddenly turn around and start appealing to working-class white men.
No, I’m afraid Harris is going to take the Hillary Clinton approach, by just assuming that “Women’s issues are men’s issues.” She will then spend millions upon millions of dollars going after every imaginable demographic group, while not spending a dime appealing to (quite literally) half of the electorate. Then, like Clinton before her, she will blame her lack of male support on misogyny and sexism and all the rest.
The stupidity of it just boggles the mind. But that is what’s likely to happen. And largely as a result of that, Trump will win in November.
The extent to which the left has just completely checked out of policy debate this time around is still surprising to me. The person who said they were picking their vote based on whether someone seems "like a dad" vs "angry", or "my kind of guy", seems to sum this philosophy up perfectly.
I think the sort of people who might consider voting for Harris/Walz don't really believe the position of president or VP matter, or don't believe they should matter, when it comes to policy. They are figureheads who broadcast the American vibe, both domestically and abroad, and are basically like the British King or Queen in that they are meant to be avatars for an abstracted and idealized American. Actually deciding things is best left to unknown committees of unknown people in agencies you've never heard of, but who are surely the nation's top people.
And there's something to this view. Biden is clearly gone, America is basically without a President and whoever is actually making decisions is completely unknown. This doesn't bother the left in the slightest. I suspect they actually like it. Things seem to tick along after all. So where's the problem?
The problem is that there's this constitutional document that everyone is supposed to agree to, which says that the POTUS does matter and does make decisions. By setting things up so the position of President is rendered worthless the left are continuing to trample over the constitutional arrangement that theoretically lets them share power peacefully with others.
The whole process of making politics worthless is much further along in the UK than the USA, as both Labour and the Conservatives have been on board with outsourcing Parliamentary powers to the so-called quangos (quasi non-governmental organizations), i.e. supposedly "independent" committees of technocrats who are amazingly always left wing. We're now seeing at the moment where that path leads. People must be able to vote for policies through politicians. Reducing everything to generic vibes and identity groups isn't merely icky, it's actually dangerous.
Seems to kind of be ignoring the last 30 years to say that the Democrats are the side with a problem of not taking policy seriously... The Democrats remain the party of the wonks. They have so many policies that they always have to argue over what the prioritize in the narrow windows they have power. Every time they get a trifecta, some meaningful reform package gets passed, which reflects whatever the internal politicking identified as the priority for that given legislative session.
Meanwhile, Republicans are like a dog chasing the mail truck, and despite claiming to support fiscal responsibility whenever they want to block Democratic policy proposals, every time they get a trifecta they find themselves yet again saying, "oh, uh... let's cut taxes again I guess?" They literally didn't even put out a party platform in 2020.
To expect a specific presidential campaign operation to run on policy is a relatively recent and silly phenomenon. Yes, the presidency is an important job, and we should take the president seriously not just as a figurehead, but as an executive. An /executive/, not a legislator. If you want to talk policy, get involved in the races for your state's senators, or your district's congressional representative. The smaller the scale, (i.e. house, or even better, look at state legislature, or city council), the more power your voice has. Advocating for a candidate in your local congressional /primary/ is really the place where your voice has leverage, since in a lot of "safe" districts, the general election is just kind of a rubber-stamping of whichever candidate won the local party's primary.
Doing horse race culture war punditry on the internet is just entertainment, and the attention paid to the presidency is insanely disproportionate to its actual importance relative to the legislature.
I said _this time around_. We agree that in 2020 it was to some extent reversed. One might argue that it was because of incumbency (the platform was implicitly: what we're doing now but more of it).
But this time it's the Republicans with the platform, and Harris who doesn't have one. You say "They have so many policies that they always have to argue over what the prioritize in the narrow windows they have power" but this time around they seem to have none, or Harris seems to make positions up on the spot during speeches. Maybe that's because she only just became the candidate. We'll see how things shake out.
I think you are mostly correct about this, however, the President is actually NOT supposed to be making many decisions, other than on foreign policy. Making decisions about domestic policy is supposed to be the job of Congress, they're the ones with constitutional authority to adopt and amend laws -- not the President. They just haven't, because Congress has been too evenly split to pass anything the past two decades, other than in crises, and since 2000 each President has usurped more and more executive power (something the GOP used to be fervently against, BTW).
The President is meant to be the leader of their party, right? So the members of Congress are meant to take their policy lead from that leader, at least if they gain a majority.
RE: Of Boys and Men by Richard Reeves
I'd be truly impressed if Harris addressed the educational consequences of sex differences in neurodevelopment in a public speech. The probability of this is near zero for several reasons.
“… bringing up the BLM riots and other issues in Minnesota that occurred under Walz’s watch.”
The deeper you dig on that the better Walz looks from a centrist viewpoint. I don’t mean Trump’s praise of his handling, although ironically that’s a kind of shorthand proxy for the real story.
However that Trump audio is extremely helpful because the longer story requires nuanced explanation & something I suspect Walz himself doesn’t want to do, throwing the mayor & PD under the bus. I get the strong sense he’d much rather bite his tongue on that part which is important to fully understand the timeline.