I guess my question would be, "Why are these White Dudes for Harris supporting her?" What policies is she proposing to help the problems men are facing - like the fact that they are victims of the vast majority of suicide and drug overdose deaths, as well as being the overwhelming majority of the incarcerated and homeless. Meanwhile she supports organizations and individuals who suggest that men, and white men in particular, are the root of all evil and oppression in the world.
My sense was that most of the men on the call were already Democrats, so they're motivated in the way most Democrats are, by their policies and disliking Trump. I would've liked to hear more about policies directed at men's issues like the ones you mention.
I think it's really just that Trump is worse. "The lesser of two evils" is a trope every election, but especially so this one. Trump would raise tariffs, badly damaging the economy. He is 0 respect for democratic norms. He empowers people based on their personal loyalty to him, not based on their competence. He's better than the average Republican on abortion, but still more on the "restrict" side of things. He's not willing to back Ukraine- despite degrading Russian military power being a top defense priority for NATO.
If you feel like Harris is even worse, I can respect that, but Trump's a deeply repulsive candidate himself.
I can't go to the Harris side--it would take a hell of a choice of evils to support someone who used the power of her office to railroad people she knew were innocent and who kept people in jail past their prison term in order to appease prison lobbyists who needed the slave labor. She's a slaver, and a tyrant, and that's that.
I've also never been a fan of Trump--not my kinda guy as a personality, and his politics (which are basically solidly FDR) are nowhere in my neighborhood. His only appeal to me is as an outsider--the system is scleurotic and due for a turnover, having an outsider turn it over would be healthy. Vance, whose cultural politics I detest, is a sharp operator and a canny choice to that end.
I've seen inside the political world enough to pre-emptively dismiss my own inclinations to vote based on personality, values, etc. Moral goodness isn't a factor in politics, so I turn off my moral compass entirely in the ballot box. I therefore don't generally have a problem voting for someone I hate, because the only thing I'm really voting for is which government I would hate living under least. And yet, even with that kind of jaundiced view of the process, this year is shaping up to be such a shit-show that I am finding myself increasingly grateful that I live in a supermajority state, so there's no way in hell my vote will possibly count.
Because the brand name on the party makes a big difference. Sure.
Sarcasm aside, neither party has actually practiced politics (as opposed to patronage and culture wars) in eighty years. Neither one has run a competent administration since the early 1990s. All of this has been for fairly banal and predictable reasons, but party branding has nothing to do with it. The governing rationale for the entire current balance of power between state and fed, and between the three federal branches, has long since evaporated. The soil will be turned over in the next 15yrs or so, or the system itself will collapse. I have written at length about the underlying dynamics in my Substack and elsewhere.
I find the male / female dialectic in the current political conversation in in itself quite weird. Fact is, most of the problems faced by government - national security, infrastructure, balancing the budget, educating our young people - don't naturally fit in the male vs. female view of the world.
I would certainly not identify as a "white dude for Harris'. Seems condescending and patronizing. And "The Hulk" and "Kid Rock" do nothing for me.
I am happily married, Christian and conservative in the classical, rather than Trumpian, sense of the word. But we do not have children.
I think that I need to go out and get a cat. That way, I will have some kind of hook into the current political identity spectrum.
One more: "On some level, the Trump movement itself has become a meme, which is why calling it “weird” has been so effective, as stupid as that is."
This "weird" thing is so fascinating to me. The whole memeification of politics has been deeply irritating to me, but at the same time, like my cousin pointed out to me today, turns out all you really needed to do instead invent ridiculous nicknames like DemonRat and honestly anything orange at this point was just... call them *weird*.
I don't really disagree with Jeff much. I just find is strange when people have some clarity about, say, the politics of calling someone gay but don't ultimately end up with the conclusion that politics is beneath them. It's always been only memes.
Genuinely encouraged by your willingness to write a balanced political article. This one I'll call the critique, looking forward to the objective/positive perspective and just your regular guy perceptions too.
"But masculinity is about protecting the vulnerable, not bullying them. Masculinity is about being comfortable in one’s skin regardless of the crowd, not emotionally manipulating other men for not conforming. The most masculine men I know are neither self-consciously nor performatively masculine. They integrate male and female energy in a compelling way. They have gay friends and hug them yet are implicitly no-homo."
That definitely describes a version of masculinity I appreciate, as a woman, when I see it. There's a certain safety you feel around a man who is calm, comfortable, and capable.
Unfortunately survey data shows liberal men are the opposite of calm, with much higher rates of depression and anxiety. They are not stoic but are ready to burst into tears at any moment.
I am doubtful that the current guys-for-Harris vs. guys-for-Trump is changing anyone's vote. The stances important to men are relatively unchanged on both sides from the Hilary vs Trump days.
You're correct that any change would be at the margins, but keep in mind that even a swing of 1-2% of the white male vote would make a huge difference one way or the other.
Hillary Clinton out-raised Trump 2:1, so it's unclear that the money will be that impactful. Meanwhile these events are probably more destructive than constructive for Harris.
The normie non-weird take on politics is that ideally politicians and governments would carefully consider or advocate for policies, competently implement them if they are popular, and that race/gender/sexuality of the people involved wouldn't matter. This is a doubly popular take amongst "white dudes". These X for Harris Zooms raise some money she probably doesn't need because all you can do is spend that on advertising and Americans already know who Harris is, so that likely won't make a huge impact for the same reason it didn't for Clinton. What they definitely do is focus attention on their existence (note: nobody is talking about anything actually said during these events, only that they took place).
What they do is send the message that Harris and her supporters fight for a pure-play DEI world where what you look or feel like is everything, and what you can do or even what you want to do is a sideshow, a nothingness. And even though that's really freaking weird and historically bad news, they're going to gaslight people into thinking it's the opposite and it's the normies who are weird.
That's a hard sell. It has always been a hard sell. It's an especially hard to sell to most "white dudes", straight or otherwise, who are all well aware by now that the Harris' of the world hate them and make them second class citizens whenever possible. They might not want to engage in HR cringe, but the people they're sending their money to absolutely do.
So when you say Trump needs to compete for male support, I wonder what you're looking at to conclude that. The standard take is it's the other way around. Trump has been competing hard for that segment for years, and has done so very successfully. He talks about policies and issues they (we) care about. Harris has only just started and is well behind, even The Hill says "the effort to win over white men will be difficult for Democrats as the voting bloc has moved farther into the Republican column under former President Trump".
I just don't see how this kind of thing will actually convince the unconvinced. The Democrats make an explicit play to gay men using intersectional ideology, but make no mistake: in their hierarchy you are still very much a second class citizen.
No one voting for Trump is doing it for "policy" reasons. Trump's views are incoherent because every day is about his feelings. Whatever makes him feel important and like a big man that day is all that matters to him.
The Harris voter focuses mostly on the personality of Trump. The Trump voter concedes that the personality isn't great, but that Trump is the most likely path to get the policies he wants. This reflects the conversations I've both had and seen with Americans over the years about their political views (and a few non-Americans too). Not that many people love Trump. But, they view him as standing up for them and policies that'll improve their lives, so they grin and bear it.
That's because the policy agenda of the Democratic party appeals to us. I was very happy with Biden policy.
So Trump's manifest character deficits are what really matters.
Because more infrastructure, support for single payer healthcare, securing the border that Trump blocked because he thought it would hurt him in the election putting himself ahead of the country. Working towards diplomatic solutions in the Middle East. Staunchly supporting the Ukraine against Russian Imperialism and Russia's own malignant narcissist. Supporting NATO. Working to improve the economy of Mexico so that migrants can find jobs there instead of pushing towards America. Support for Unions.
The Democrat policy agenda is always superior to the Republican one as Republicans are personality obsessed. There isn't anything to Republican ideology other than weird worship of Donald Trump. Republicans are empty having abandoned morality completely to support a serial rapist.
OK, your assumption is that Harris will just implement the existing Biden policy agenda. That seems like a reasonable starting point but has she confirmed that's all she plans to do (and not go beyond it)?
To non-Americans it's always pretty unclear to what extent policy manifestos are an attribute of a party vs a President. It seems like the President usually picks the key policies, but here the candidate doesn't do that and you're describing the existing policy as both Democrat and Biden simultaneously. How much leeway would Harris have to diverge from that agenda?
Democratic policy has been pretty consistent over the years. There is no reason to believe she will change course. Though I hope she goes beyond it. We need healthcare reform really bad. It's hard to get a doctor or see a specialist in less than 3 months here while we pay 5x as much as other countries do
I think interpretations of masculinity are at the absolute root of our modern political divides. Remember the "cuck" insult? The idea was that not protecting one's tribe (race) from immigrants / other races is unmanly, undominant, submissive. The idea is that feminism is women being uppity because weak men allow them to. And so on. Everything revolves around this. A Conan-the-tribal-warrior fantasy of masculinity (think MAGA shaman with horns), vs. a more modern approach to it.
Bullseye! Trump and JD are alienating the middle that they need to win. Nobody worries about his base. Kamala is only popular because she's not Joe or Trump. Too bad Joe doesn't step down so we could experience a few months of her as Chief Executive. That might cure us of her before the election. JD is like a coloring book character... he can be any color he/we want. His transparent desires are fame, money and power. Wow, he's dangerous.
Having a contest about who is "gayer" or "weirder" is extremely childish and comes off as feminine in a Means Girl way. But if we have to play that stupid game.... "White Guys for Harris" is retarded and cringe. It would be like Trump holding a "Childless Cat Ladies and 'Gay Parents' for Trump" rally. Would that *not* come off as gay or cringe? Would it even win over any cat ladies or "gay parents?"
Anyways, my sincere opinion is that if you want to be a "gay parent," go ahead and start voting Democrat. Might as well get used to it. A large and vocal portion of the right are not okay with this concept and simply are not going to be. The clash on values is too deep. I would compare this to abortion--you aren't going to convince Republicans to turn strongly pro-choice, you might as well switch sides if it's truly that important to you. It's going to be the same with the idea of a "gay family."
actually, making fun of the democrats as a bunch of "childless cat ladies" is very effective. Most woman are actually afraid of ending up a "childless cat lady".
It’s not possible for the right to support gay parents. Children deserve a mother and a father. They should be brought into the world with that purpose. Gay parenting starts from the premise that the child will not have a mother or father. It’s undergone for the sake of the parent, not the child.
Meh, since when do you speak for the entire right? I don't consider myself part of the rightwing these days, so it's kind of moot. In any case, there's a difference between disagreeing with something and being a dick about it. It's not smart to unnecessarily alienate powerful swing voters.
You are trying to turn my comments into a vehicle to prosecute your views and never seem to add value with your comments in any case. People are welcome to constructively disagree with me, but I am blocking you because of your persistent toxic behavior. 👋
Should you even have those swing voters on your side if you disagree with them and they disagree with you? Misleading them by just not being clear on stances so as not to alienate them isn’t a good thing either.
Agree. It does depend on the details as you say. Somethings (if they’re important enough) are worth risking losing over. Counterintuitively, that actually wins some people over as they appreciate leaders willing to stand for something. Bernie was “losing” for decades until he became relevant and people at the very least respected his passion and consistency on what’s important to him.
"Why would I want to be on the same side of people who view my existence as an insult?"
We don't want or need your support. You're a tiny percentage of the population. If every queer dropped dead, I wouldn't even notice.
"It’s been death by a thousand paper clips, but the deeply insulting rhetoric toward gay parents has been a fuck you level turn off for me personally.
There's no such thing as gay parents. Only sex can produce children, not your gross anal fetish.
"but the “theocratic fascism” espoused by some clout-chasing trads has become something more difficult to reconcile. Some of it comes across as fundamentally anti-American as well as insulting on a personal level."
Every single president before ~1960 was a "theocratic fascist" by your standard. Nobody give as fuck about your stupid redefinition of "anti-American".
"White Dudes for Harris was as partisan as one would expect, but it didn’t feel cringe or over-wrought. I’d estimate that 80% of the speakers were straight white men, though a few were openly gay and non-white. The masculinity on display felt normal. It didn’t feel performative or forced. The event was inclusive without the annoying HR/DEI consciousness I had expected."
It was extremely cringe. You looked like worms groveling on the floor for your master's approval. It was disgusting in every way. If you thought that was normal, it's because you're a regime roach and enjoy debasing yourself.
" still consider myself center-right."
You are a left wing extremist by any reasonable standard. Wanting a 2% tax cut doesn't make you right wing.
"Masculinity means respecting women, too"
No it doesn't. It means acting like a man, for better or worse. Part of historical masculinity has been raping and pillaging. Not saying that's good, but it is masculine.
"That’s true. After studying Trump’s electoral actions in the wake of Jan 6, I concluded it was something approaching a coup attempt."
Now you're just admitting you're a left wing faggot and this whole thing is a psyop.
Honest question to you; Do you think your support is worth anything? Your group is tiny. You embody all of the failed policies of 20th century conservatism. You're a left wing extremist in all your social policies. You don't seem to have any ideas of the problem average White men are facing, much less solutions.
My honest question to you is why would I want you in a coalition? You seem much better fitted with the Democrats.
Here you are writing nasty comments anonymously on my Substack post. Does it make you feel good? You come across as angry, bitter, and cowardly. I suspect you hate yourself and your life. I feel bad for you. As for "ideas of the problems average white men are facing, much less solutions" - that would be an interesting conversation to have and I'd love to hear your perspective if only you could take off your angry asshole hat for a minute. It's too bad you've burned a bridge with me already. Farewell. I hope you feel better.
I know this queer isn't reading this anymore, but in case anyone else stumbles across this thread.
Notice how his only criticism are I'm mean. That's it, he can't address any of my points. He doesn't even try. Just tells me I'm mean. Which is the most feminine of all arguing techniques. Which makes sense because queers are just men with feminine mindsets.
"Here you are writing nasty comments anonymously on my Substack post. Does it make you feel good?
Yes actually. The last~60 years people have been socially pressured into telling more and more blatant lies. And the "protected groups" have become more and more smug and condescending. And yes, it feels good to take you smug assholes down a peg. I won't apologize for that.
"You come across as angry, bitter, and cowardly. I suspect you hate yourself and your life. I feel bad for you."
I don't care what you think. I don't care what you feel. You and your opinions are dirt beneath my feet.
"As for "ideas of the problems average white men are facing, much less solutions" - that would be an interesting conversation to have and I'd love to hear your perspective if only you could take off your angry asshole hat for a minute."
Being angry doesn't make me an asshole if I'm correct. Being angry doesn't make me an asshole if I'm justified. Just because you're too obtuse to see what a piece of shit you are.
"It's too bad you've burned a bridge with me already. Farewell. I hope you feel better."
I guess my question would be, "Why are these White Dudes for Harris supporting her?" What policies is she proposing to help the problems men are facing - like the fact that they are victims of the vast majority of suicide and drug overdose deaths, as well as being the overwhelming majority of the incarcerated and homeless. Meanwhile she supports organizations and individuals who suggest that men, and white men in particular, are the root of all evil and oppression in the world.
My sense was that most of the men on the call were already Democrats, so they're motivated in the way most Democrats are, by their policies and disliking Trump. I would've liked to hear more about policies directed at men's issues like the ones you mention.
I think it's really just that Trump is worse. "The lesser of two evils" is a trope every election, but especially so this one. Trump would raise tariffs, badly damaging the economy. He is 0 respect for democratic norms. He empowers people based on their personal loyalty to him, not based on their competence. He's better than the average Republican on abortion, but still more on the "restrict" side of things. He's not willing to back Ukraine- despite degrading Russian military power being a top defense priority for NATO.
If you feel like Harris is even worse, I can respect that, but Trump's a deeply repulsive candidate himself.
Wonderful article. A pleasure to read.
I can't go to the Harris side--it would take a hell of a choice of evils to support someone who used the power of her office to railroad people she knew were innocent and who kept people in jail past their prison term in order to appease prison lobbyists who needed the slave labor. She's a slaver, and a tyrant, and that's that.
I've also never been a fan of Trump--not my kinda guy as a personality, and his politics (which are basically solidly FDR) are nowhere in my neighborhood. His only appeal to me is as an outsider--the system is scleurotic and due for a turnover, having an outsider turn it over would be healthy. Vance, whose cultural politics I detest, is a sharp operator and a canny choice to that end.
I've seen inside the political world enough to pre-emptively dismiss my own inclinations to vote based on personality, values, etc. Moral goodness isn't a factor in politics, so I turn off my moral compass entirely in the ballot box. I therefore don't generally have a problem voting for someone I hate, because the only thing I'm really voting for is which government I would hate living under least. And yet, even with that kind of jaundiced view of the process, this year is shaping up to be such a shit-show that I am finding myself increasingly grateful that I live in a supermajority state, so there's no way in hell my vote will possibly count.
Thanks Daniel. This is pretty much where I am too, a double-hater. There's something nice about watching semi-dispassionately from the sidelines.
You'll love it when everything stops working when the Republicans "turn it over".
*looks significantly at the last thirty years*
Because the brand name on the party makes a big difference. Sure.
Sarcasm aside, neither party has actually practiced politics (as opposed to patronage and culture wars) in eighty years. Neither one has run a competent administration since the early 1990s. All of this has been for fairly banal and predictable reasons, but party branding has nothing to do with it. The governing rationale for the entire current balance of power between state and fed, and between the three federal branches, has long since evaporated. The soil will be turned over in the next 15yrs or so, or the system itself will collapse. I have written at length about the underlying dynamics in my Substack and elsewhere.
I find the male / female dialectic in the current political conversation in in itself quite weird. Fact is, most of the problems faced by government - national security, infrastructure, balancing the budget, educating our young people - don't naturally fit in the male vs. female view of the world.
I would certainly not identify as a "white dude for Harris'. Seems condescending and patronizing. And "The Hulk" and "Kid Rock" do nothing for me.
I am happily married, Christian and conservative in the classical, rather than Trumpian, sense of the word. But we do not have children.
I think that I need to go out and get a cat. That way, I will have some kind of hook into the current political identity spectrum.
Thanks for reading and commenting, Drake. How about "Norfolk Terrier Fans For Harris / Trump" - ha.
I think that my Norfolk Terrier is likely a royalist.
One more: "On some level, the Trump movement itself has become a meme, which is why calling it “weird” has been so effective, as stupid as that is."
This "weird" thing is so fascinating to me. The whole memeification of politics has been deeply irritating to me, but at the same time, like my cousin pointed out to me today, turns out all you really needed to do instead invent ridiculous nicknames like DemonRat and honestly anything orange at this point was just... call them *weird*.
I don't really disagree with Jeff much. I just find is strange when people have some clarity about, say, the politics of calling someone gay but don't ultimately end up with the conclusion that politics is beneath them. It's always been only memes.
"Politics is beneath me, why do I engage" is my internal dialogue - lol
...i think the saddest thing about all of this is that american politics has devolved into teams of overpaid assholes making memes...
Haha, some truth there
Genuinely encouraged by your willingness to write a balanced political article. This one I'll call the critique, looking forward to the objective/positive perspective and just your regular guy perceptions too.
Thanks Romell
"But masculinity is about protecting the vulnerable, not bullying them. Masculinity is about being comfortable in one’s skin regardless of the crowd, not emotionally manipulating other men for not conforming. The most masculine men I know are neither self-consciously nor performatively masculine. They integrate male and female energy in a compelling way. They have gay friends and hug them yet are implicitly no-homo."
That definitely describes a version of masculinity I appreciate, as a woman, when I see it. There's a certain safety you feel around a man who is calm, comfortable, and capable.
There are nuances around masculinity, but that's it at a high level.
Unfortunately survey data shows liberal men are the opposite of calm, with much higher rates of depression and anxiety. They are not stoic but are ready to burst into tears at any moment.
Some truth in that. My understanding is that liberal men are more neurotic while conservative men are more disagreeable, in terms of big five traits.
I am doubtful that the current guys-for-Harris vs. guys-for-Trump is changing anyone's vote. The stances important to men are relatively unchanged on both sides from the Hilary vs Trump days.
You're correct that any change would be at the margins, but keep in mind that even a swing of 1-2% of the white male vote would make a huge difference one way or the other.
Hillary Clinton out-raised Trump 2:1, so it's unclear that the money will be that impactful. Meanwhile these events are probably more destructive than constructive for Harris.
The normie non-weird take on politics is that ideally politicians and governments would carefully consider or advocate for policies, competently implement them if they are popular, and that race/gender/sexuality of the people involved wouldn't matter. This is a doubly popular take amongst "white dudes". These X for Harris Zooms raise some money she probably doesn't need because all you can do is spend that on advertising and Americans already know who Harris is, so that likely won't make a huge impact for the same reason it didn't for Clinton. What they definitely do is focus attention on their existence (note: nobody is talking about anything actually said during these events, only that they took place).
What they do is send the message that Harris and her supporters fight for a pure-play DEI world where what you look or feel like is everything, and what you can do or even what you want to do is a sideshow, a nothingness. And even though that's really freaking weird and historically bad news, they're going to gaslight people into thinking it's the opposite and it's the normies who are weird.
That's a hard sell. It has always been a hard sell. It's an especially hard to sell to most "white dudes", straight or otherwise, who are all well aware by now that the Harris' of the world hate them and make them second class citizens whenever possible. They might not want to engage in HR cringe, but the people they're sending their money to absolutely do.
So when you say Trump needs to compete for male support, I wonder what you're looking at to conclude that. The standard take is it's the other way around. Trump has been competing hard for that segment for years, and has done so very successfully. He talks about policies and issues they (we) care about. Harris has only just started and is well behind, even The Hill says "the effort to win over white men will be difficult for Democrats as the voting bloc has moved farther into the Republican column under former President Trump".
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4801350-harris-campaign-appeal-white-men/
I just don't see how this kind of thing will actually convince the unconvinced. The Democrats make an explicit play to gay men using intersectional ideology, but make no mistake: in their hierarchy you are still very much a second class citizen.
No one voting for Trump is doing it for "policy" reasons. Trump's views are incoherent because every day is about his feelings. Whatever makes him feel important and like a big man that day is all that matters to him.
I think this imaginary conversation is a reasonable depiction of a Trump vs Harris voter:
https://substack.com/home/post/p-147160147
The Harris voter focuses mostly on the personality of Trump. The Trump voter concedes that the personality isn't great, but that Trump is the most likely path to get the policies he wants. This reflects the conversations I've both had and seen with Americans over the years about their political views (and a few non-Americans too). Not that many people love Trump. But, they view him as standing up for them and policies that'll improve their lives, so they grin and bear it.
That's because the policy agenda of the Democratic party appeals to us. I was very happy with Biden policy.
So Trump's manifest character deficits are what really matters.
Because more infrastructure, support for single payer healthcare, securing the border that Trump blocked because he thought it would hurt him in the election putting himself ahead of the country. Working towards diplomatic solutions in the Middle East. Staunchly supporting the Ukraine against Russian Imperialism and Russia's own malignant narcissist. Supporting NATO. Working to improve the economy of Mexico so that migrants can find jobs there instead of pushing towards America. Support for Unions.
The Democrat policy agenda is always superior to the Republican one as Republicans are personality obsessed. There isn't anything to Republican ideology other than weird worship of Donald Trump. Republicans are empty having abandoned morality completely to support a serial rapist.
I agree with your reasons for supporting Biden, but I think your depiction of Republicans is a bit caricatured. You're correct at a high level though.
OK, your assumption is that Harris will just implement the existing Biden policy agenda. That seems like a reasonable starting point but has she confirmed that's all she plans to do (and not go beyond it)?
To non-Americans it's always pretty unclear to what extent policy manifestos are an attribute of a party vs a President. It seems like the President usually picks the key policies, but here the candidate doesn't do that and you're describing the existing policy as both Democrat and Biden simultaneously. How much leeway would Harris have to diverge from that agenda?
Democratic policy has been pretty consistent over the years. There is no reason to believe she will change course. Though I hope she goes beyond it. We need healthcare reform really bad. It's hard to get a doctor or see a specialist in less than 3 months here while we pay 5x as much as other countries do
She said she would.
I think interpretations of masculinity are at the absolute root of our modern political divides. Remember the "cuck" insult? The idea was that not protecting one's tribe (race) from immigrants / other races is unmanly, undominant, submissive. The idea is that feminism is women being uppity because weak men allow them to. And so on. Everything revolves around this. A Conan-the-tribal-warrior fantasy of masculinity (think MAGA shaman with horns), vs. a more modern approach to it.
Bullseye! Trump and JD are alienating the middle that they need to win. Nobody worries about his base. Kamala is only popular because she's not Joe or Trump. Too bad Joe doesn't step down so we could experience a few months of her as Chief Executive. That might cure us of her before the election. JD is like a coloring book character... he can be any color he/we want. His transparent desires are fame, money and power. Wow, he's dangerous.
I appreciate you and your writing, Jeff!
Aww thanks Helen!
Having a contest about who is "gayer" or "weirder" is extremely childish and comes off as feminine in a Means Girl way. But if we have to play that stupid game.... "White Guys for Harris" is retarded and cringe. It would be like Trump holding a "Childless Cat Ladies and 'Gay Parents' for Trump" rally. Would that *not* come off as gay or cringe? Would it even win over any cat ladies or "gay parents?"
Anyways, my sincere opinion is that if you want to be a "gay parent," go ahead and start voting Democrat. Might as well get used to it. A large and vocal portion of the right are not okay with this concept and simply are not going to be. The clash on values is too deep. I would compare this to abortion--you aren't going to convince Republicans to turn strongly pro-choice, you might as well switch sides if it's truly that important to you. It's going to be the same with the idea of a "gay family."
actually, making fun of the democrats as a bunch of "childless cat ladies" is very effective. Most woman are actually afraid of ending up a "childless cat lady".
It’s not possible for the right to support gay parents. Children deserve a mother and a father. They should be brought into the world with that purpose. Gay parenting starts from the premise that the child will not have a mother or father. It’s undergone for the sake of the parent, not the child.
Meh, since when do you speak for the entire right? I don't consider myself part of the rightwing these days, so it's kind of moot. In any case, there's a difference between disagreeing with something and being a dick about it. It's not smart to unnecessarily alienate powerful swing voters.
You didn't respond to the charge that children deserve a mother and a father. Emphasis on mother in this example, I suppose.
You are trying to turn my comments into a vehicle to prosecute your views and never seem to add value with your comments in any case. People are welcome to constructively disagree with me, but I am blocking you because of your persistent toxic behavior. 👋
Should you even have those swing voters on your side if you disagree with them and they disagree with you? Misleading them by just not being clear on stances so as not to alienate them isn’t a good thing either.
Depends on context and specifics. Politics is based on coalitions, and trads are a minority. Taking a hard line on every issue is a recipe for losing.
Agree. It does depend on the details as you say. Somethings (if they’re important enough) are worth risking losing over. Counterintuitively, that actually wins some people over as they appreciate leaders willing to stand for something. Bernie was “losing” for decades until he became relevant and people at the very least respected his passion and consistency on what’s important to him.
That’s the art of politics, knowing when to compromise and when not to.
"Why would I want to be on the same side of people who view my existence as an insult?"
We don't want or need your support. You're a tiny percentage of the population. If every queer dropped dead, I wouldn't even notice.
"It’s been death by a thousand paper clips, but the deeply insulting rhetoric toward gay parents has been a fuck you level turn off for me personally.
There's no such thing as gay parents. Only sex can produce children, not your gross anal fetish.
"but the “theocratic fascism” espoused by some clout-chasing trads has become something more difficult to reconcile. Some of it comes across as fundamentally anti-American as well as insulting on a personal level."
Every single president before ~1960 was a "theocratic fascist" by your standard. Nobody give as fuck about your stupid redefinition of "anti-American".
"White Dudes for Harris was as partisan as one would expect, but it didn’t feel cringe or over-wrought. I’d estimate that 80% of the speakers were straight white men, though a few were openly gay and non-white. The masculinity on display felt normal. It didn’t feel performative or forced. The event was inclusive without the annoying HR/DEI consciousness I had expected."
It was extremely cringe. You looked like worms groveling on the floor for your master's approval. It was disgusting in every way. If you thought that was normal, it's because you're a regime roach and enjoy debasing yourself.
" still consider myself center-right."
You are a left wing extremist by any reasonable standard. Wanting a 2% tax cut doesn't make you right wing.
"Masculinity means respecting women, too"
No it doesn't. It means acting like a man, for better or worse. Part of historical masculinity has been raping and pillaging. Not saying that's good, but it is masculine.
"That’s true. After studying Trump’s electoral actions in the wake of Jan 6, I concluded it was something approaching a coup attempt."
Now you're just admitting you're a left wing faggot and this whole thing is a psyop.
Lol, you seem nice. You are correct in one sense: Whatever side you're on is not one I'd want to be on.
Also, do you think George Washington would find the [real] Right Wingers to be more weird, or you? I think the latter.
Honest question to you; Do you think your support is worth anything? Your group is tiny. You embody all of the failed policies of 20th century conservatism. You're a left wing extremist in all your social policies. You don't seem to have any ideas of the problem average White men are facing, much less solutions.
My honest question to you is why would I want you in a coalition? You seem much better fitted with the Democrats.
Here you are writing nasty comments anonymously on my Substack post. Does it make you feel good? You come across as angry, bitter, and cowardly. I suspect you hate yourself and your life. I feel bad for you. As for "ideas of the problems average white men are facing, much less solutions" - that would be an interesting conversation to have and I'd love to hear your perspective if only you could take off your angry asshole hat for a minute. It's too bad you've burned a bridge with me already. Farewell. I hope you feel better.
I know this queer isn't reading this anymore, but in case anyone else stumbles across this thread.
Notice how his only criticism are I'm mean. That's it, he can't address any of my points. He doesn't even try. Just tells me I'm mean. Which is the most feminine of all arguing techniques. Which makes sense because queers are just men with feminine mindsets.
"Here you are writing nasty comments anonymously on my Substack post. Does it make you feel good?
Yes actually. The last~60 years people have been socially pressured into telling more and more blatant lies. And the "protected groups" have become more and more smug and condescending. And yes, it feels good to take you smug assholes down a peg. I won't apologize for that.
"You come across as angry, bitter, and cowardly. I suspect you hate yourself and your life. I feel bad for you."
I don't care what you think. I don't care what you feel. You and your opinions are dirt beneath my feet.
"As for "ideas of the problems average white men are facing, much less solutions" - that would be an interesting conversation to have and I'd love to hear your perspective if only you could take off your angry asshole hat for a minute."
Being angry doesn't make me an asshole if I'm correct. Being angry doesn't make me an asshole if I'm justified. Just because you're too obtuse to see what a piece of shit you are.
"It's too bad you've burned a bridge with me already. Farewell. I hope you feel better."
Have a nice life. Try not to catch Monkey-pox.