Kamala Harris Is In Trouble With White Men Who Work For A Living
Kamala Harris Is In Trouble With White Men Who Work For A Living
Who could have seen it coming?
It is all happening as I have said, and Democrats are still not getting it. “The Teamsters withholding an endorsement from Harris this week — after internal polling showed most respondents backing Trump — is sparking fresh concerns that the GOP nominee could have higher-than-expected support among union members, especially men,” Politico reports.
Pete Giangreco, a longtime Democratic consultant who has worked on several presidential campaigns, said he is “optimistic” about Harris’ standing because women decisively support her.
“The good news is that she’s doing better than most Democrats ever have with white non-college women. But the bad news is that with white non-college men, we’re seeing a step back,” he said. “The gender gap is growing wider because those groups are heading in two different directions, and how does it net out? We’ve got 47 days to figure that out.”
The solution to this hemorrhaging of white working class male support for the Democratic Party is not simply a return to a focus on manufacturing or jobs, although ditching “climate agenda” and “degrowth” as talking points would help. Rather, the problem is a decade of cultural advocacy associated with the Democratic Party. Men are offended by Sports Illustrated putting Lia Thomas on the cover. Men are appalled by the anti-male messaging of the culture, the wokification of film and comic and game franchises, the imposition of intersectionality politics and neopronouns onto every last area of life, even the private home. They watch Am I Racist and notice that the most zealous and vicious wokesters are women.
Tomorrow I am leaving on a jet plane. I do know when I will be back again: next week. Expect little from me in the meantime. To make up for the absence, annual subscriptions are 40 percent off until I return. Lock in the savings and access content from the archives, meaning everything older than four weeks, such as the essay linked below.
Using Trump to try to exact retribution for Democrats' socio-cultural offenses is like using a chainsaw to cut the stick of butter you're holding in your palm. You'll make a mess and be very sorry in the end.
Still, the impulse is understandable. Earlier today I listened to as much of a Washington Post story titled "Donald Trump's imaginary and frightening world" as I could stand. It's not that I support Trump. What irritated me was the intellectual dishonesty that afflicts parts of the liberal and progressive elite.
Yes, there's a lot about Trump's world view that merits criticism. But, like a broken clock that happens to tell the correct time twice a day, Trump occasionally lands on legitimate grievances. The author, Ashley Parker, took Trump to task repeatedly for claiming that kids receive gender reassignment surgery at school. In doing so, she made the mistake of taking Trump literally instead of seriously and failing to consider whether Trump might be employing the literary device known as hyperbole. Lord knows progressives are masters of that particular figure of speech.
Most Democrats won't acknowledge that American schools have been so thoroughly captured by gender identity ideology that they might as well be submitting students to gender affirming surgery during class hours.
Ms. Parker sidesteps one of the most objectionable aspects of the gender revolution, which is its top-down direction. Since gender is a synthetic political phenomenon rooted in an especially dismal strain of philosophy not biology or human experience, schools have to educate children on the subject as if they were teaching them about the chief agricultural exports of the 50 states. Because gender does not exist in nature, kids would never develop the correct queer understanding of it on their own. That's why teachers have to be gender evangelists in the classrooms. As an aside, sexual orientation, like walking and talking, develops naturally in young people without any pedagogical input whatsoever.
Ms. Parker slams the door on a discussion about another aspect of schools' complicity in the dissemination of gender identity ideology that makes the gender reassignment hyperbole even more apt. Infuriatingly, school districts are increasingly colluding with children to withhold knowledge of a child's social gender transition from the parents. Parents' discovery, months after the fact, that their son has been going by a female name at school and using the pronouns she/her and, further, that teachers and administrators have been going along with the deception, would surely shock them almost as severely as learning their boy had been given gender affirming medical treatments at school. As the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR) pointed out in its letter to the head of the California school system several years ago, [1] the practice not only interferes with parents' constitutional right to control the rearing of their children, it also deprives them of due process. The latter breach occurs because schools justify their decision to hide children's social gender transition from parents on the grounds that the parents' transphobia makes them a threat to the child. However, schools do not engage in any fact finding about the parents and the child's home life; they simply take the kid's word for it. This is profoundly wrong.
When the mainstream media ridicules Trump's objections to gender ideology just because they come from Trump, they do Americans a great disservice. What they are doing is further stifling free, full and open public debate about gender. Gender crept into the culture on little cat feet. Have the American public ever had an opportunity to vote on whether they agree with the tenets of gender ideology? It's doubtful most people would if it were ever possible to mount a full-throated defense of sex realism. Have elected officials ever convened town halls or other public events where voters could exchange views on youth gender medicine, men in women's sports or women's prisons, standards of trans health care, gender curricula in schools, self-ID, preferred pronouns, the connection between autism or mental illness and the adoption of a trans identity and so on? The answer is very likely never or extremely seldom. Gender ideology arrived on the scene with its victims and villains ready-made. Even posing questions about gender was enough to put the questioner in social or vocational jeopardy. Refusing to accept that gender is real or that people can change sex brands the dissident as a transphobe unworthy of being accepted in polite society. I have lost track of the times I have heard an otherwise reasonable podcast host cast gratuitous aspersions on J. K. Rowling.
There is no reason to think a Harris/Walz administration would not be all-in on gender identity ideology. I can see why Kamala Harris is in trouble with white men. Let's hope that not enough of them refuse to vote for her that Trump is elected, because that would be terrible for this nation, its people and its future.
[1] https://www.fairforall.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Letter-to-Mr-Thurmond-Ms-Dunlap.pdf