(1) The Democrats perceive that they need to run candidates who are straight White Christian men to win in certain jurisdictions- and maybe even nationally.
(2) No normal straight White Christian man today would want to be deeply involved with the Democratic Party.
Even many Democrats embrace the first part of the paradox.
An Axios piece in March that got a lot of attention was entitled “Some Dems’ 2028 strategy: a Straight, White, Christian Man.” And that, according to Axios “Their fear, divulged with dismay in group chats, at cocktail parties and increasingly in public, is that parts of the electorate are too biased to support a woman or other diverse candidate for president.”
The Axios article noted that:
“Former first lady Michelle Obama fueled such talk recently, saying the U.S. is ‘not ready for a woman.’
Democratic strategists have put it bluntly, with several saying a version of ‘It has to be a white guy.’”
Now, I happen to be fairly confident that, just as they are wrong about most things, they are wrong about this. They projecting their own racism, which is omnipresent, onto the electorate. But what’s important for understanding Democrat behavior is that *they* think it’s true.
One could only look at the 2024 election to falsify their claim. Trump’s gains that led him to victory over Harris, as opposed to “Scranton Joe” Biden, were overwhelmingly concentrated among minority voters. He won Hispanic men—the first time a GOP candidate has done that in modern history. By contrast, Trump had only very small gains among White voters. White voters were just as happy to vote for Harris as they had been for Biden—minority voters weren’t—and not because of her sex or the color of her skin, but because of the content of her character.
The reason, of course, that normal straight, White Christian men won’t become leaders in the modern Democrat party is simple. The Democrats hate straight White Christian men—organizing against them and their interests as a class is essentially a requirement of participating seriously in Democratic party politics.
In October of 2024, producer/director Jacob Reed, a supporter of Kamala Harris’s campaign, released an ad that said it all about how Democrats view men:
I don't think this ad is meant to convince men to vote for Harris (LOL). I think it's meant to reassure her base—college educated women—that the Democratic Party is truly theirs. The only men the party recognizes are these emasculated, AI generated putzes. https://t.co/S5Po2MFFhy
— Batya Ungar-Sargon (@bungarsargon) October 11, 2024
The ad was mocked as ‘the cringiest political ad ever created:’
“This ad is amazing because neither pole in the argument captures the spirit of ‘being a real man,’” City Journal writer Chris Rufo said. “It’s not about barrel-aged bourbon or deadlifting 500 pounds, nor is it about supporting IVF or voting for Kamala Harris. These are both caricatures: one is a left-wing mistranslation of ‘manosphere masculinity’; the other is an attempt to ‘redefine masculinity’ in left-wing ideological terms. Taken together, they represent a phony simulacrum of the male nature.”
Manhattan Institute fellow Leor Sapir argued, “What this ad fundamentally misses is that manliness is all about NOT waiting for encouragement or permission to stand up for (or to) something. This is what makes it at once dangerous and essential for civilization.”
“I don’t think this ad is meant to convince men to vote for Harris (LOL),” Newsweek opinion editor Batya Ungar-Sargon wrote. “I think it’s meant to reassure her base—college educated women—that the Democratic Party is truly theirs. The only men the party recognizes are these emasculated, AI generated putzes.”
And thus, an Army of Betos become cloned by the left for each election cycle.