At times, it can seem almost trite to say something is in the cultural zeitgeist, or to use the contemporary parlance, is “having a moment”. What qualifies as such? It smacks of marketing sensationalism and influencer-era hyperbole. But it would be difficult to argue that the focus of the 2024 presidential election hasn’t aimed its lens squarely at one demographic in particular: young men.
When certain cultural dialogue captures the moment, it can be hard to avoid. Like goldendoodles on a city sidewalk. But in the case of the analyzation of young, American men voting trends, it is more akin to trees in a forest. Each podcast, news article, political pundit, morning talk show, or Instagram post wants to discuss where the young man contingency is leaning; namely, further to the right. The assumption implicit in all of these conversations is that we are somehow surprised that these young, often socially liberal, men are going against the accepted cultural ideology: that young people tilt Democrat.
But as a young man myself, I am not in the least bit surprised. Living in a small, predominantly working-class, region of southern Indiana; it is simply a continuation of norms. Perhaps wrapped in different paper, but nevertheless, the same package. Could it be that the dominant narrative of young men held by so many Democrat brass is both outdated and misinformed? I think, yes, but as in so many matters of the national discourse, the answers lie in the nuance rather than the evident.
First, whether real or imagined, young men of a certain cohort feel they’ve been excluded from the cultural and political conversation. In an excellent article from Claire Cain Miller, she discusses the large chasm between male and female Gen Z voters that has emerged. Voters between the ages of eighteen and twenty-nine tout the largest gender divide of any generation, with about a 51-point gap between the two according to four national polls. She discusses the disillusionment many young men have felt in a country that seems to value the feminine ideal whilst devaluing men’s contribution. This is not only a “vibe”, but supported by statistics.
In an enlightening interview with Ezra Klein from March 2023, acclaimed researcher and Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute, Richard Reeves, elaborated on some of these statistics. In terms of higher education, young men are now nearly 14 percent less likely to enroll in 4-year institutions as their female peers, and 15 percent less likely to graduate with a bachelor’s degree. These divides only worsen when viewed through a racial lens. Compare this with a 13 percent gap between males and females prior to the passing of Title IX in 1972, favoring male graduates, and an ambiguous interpretation emerges. One, a remarkable accomplishment for educational equity in this country, objectively needed in the march towards social justice. But, when stepping back, could it not also be seen as a failure of the educational structures to young men? You then include statistics such as men being four times as likely to die by suicide than females, 14 percent decrease in median wages for non-college educated men since 1979, increased feelings of isolation and loneliness among the male populus, and a bleak picture takes shape.
It is also important as a caveat that it’s not as though the gender pay gap has somehow evaporated. According to statistics from the Department of Labor, in 2022 the median income for male earners was $62,350 a year compared to females of $52,360. That is a 17 percent gap. However, compared to the 42 percent gap in 1972 (controlled for inflation), that is a startling rise in pay equity. There is still more work to be done. And if we are serious about addressing the wage gap, let’s answer the question as to why. Work by people like Princeton economist Henrik Kleven suggest that it is not so much from ersatz gender discrimination as it is a “child penalty” or motherhood penalty. Women endure a dramatic decline in wages after the birth of their first child, and end up earning 20 percent less than their male counterparts over the course of their careers. This would seem to suggest needed changes both socially (e.g., a reduction of shame surrounding male stay-at-home parenting) and in policy that encourages parental leave.
But, as Reeves suggests in his discussion with Klein, we as a society have currently only viewed these issues in isolation rather than in unison. We have thought that by focusing on the needs of men and boys that we are somehow neglecting the problems of women and girls. Yet, it need not be. But as a result, many young men have felt that the narrative does exactly that, but in reverse. As such, a certain disassociation has taken place. In response, many have turned to what they perceive as these strong, masculine paragons of manhood to feel moored. Enter Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson, Nelk Boys, and of course Donald Trump. Granted, not all of these examples are cut from the same cloth, but they all boast impressive followings of young men.
If you take the time to talk to these men about what is driving their votes, especially those ubiquitous right-leaning ones from places such as here in rural Midwest, you seem to gather recurring answers. You’ll hear much about a struggling economy, about the “following of one’s Christian faith”, about grocery prices. There is irritation, exasperation, and resentment. Regardless of whether Nobel-prize winning economists endorse Kamala Harris’ economic plan over Trump’s, or apolitical four-star generals who’ve served under him directly warn of the dangers of a second term, or that he has been found liable for sexual abuse; these are all moot. I’ve seen this moral tabling so many times it has become the standard. It’s as though one were a child’s toy meant for a triangular hole, but now that the Republican Party is a circular hole, inevitably some edges will need to be trimmed. But I think at the heart of it is a desire for meaning. There is an identity to being a Trump supporter that the common sense politics of Democrats struggle to capture. The difficulty in persuading this electorate in the future is that it won’t be delivered on the backs of sound policies, but in a changing culture.
The public writ large will need to reckon with these questions of what it means to be a man in modern society. So far, our neglect to answer this question has opened a vacuum in which the free market has supplied ideologues and division. I do not purport to know the answer to this question, but I know the hemorrhaging of male figures in places like K-12 education will certainly not solve it. If we as concerned citizens care about what the future holds for masculinity, we need to offer examples of male figures who are equal parts strong and compassionate, courageous and contemplative, intelligent and unassuming. As Longfellow once said, “every man has his secret sorrows in which the world knows not; and often times we call a man cold when he is only sad.” We must sow this need with that same understanding, for if we do not, only more Trumps will grow.
THE WAYFARER 