For all his endless rambling nonsense, Donald Trump's message can be boiled down to a simple lie: If one group of people does well, it must necessarily be at the expense of another. Zero-sum thinking is literally classified as a logical fallacy, and the reason why should be obvious given a moment's thought. If your neighbor buys a new car, for instance, it doesn't mean you can't have one. Trump's relentless repetition of the zero-sum fallacy, however, has sadly convinced many voters that two groups of people are at odds with each other: men and women.
In a poll of swing states in early September, CBS News found many voters see this as a "girls v. boys" election. In Michigan, 77% of voters believe Vice President Kamala Harris is for women's interests, but only 55% believe she will work for men. A whopping 81%, however, believe Trump is for men's interests, though most — 54% — correctly understand Trump is against women. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin voters showed similar results, with large numbers of voters believing a candidate could be for men or women but not both.
It's frustrating because the truth is much simpler and also doesn't put these two genders at loggerheads: Harris is better for both men and women, and Trump is much, much worse for people of any gender. As Sarah Lazarus wrote at Off Message, "Kamala Harris will be a president for all Americans," whether "they’re sports guys or tech bros." Financial experts of all political stripes agree that the issue of the economy, which a majority of voters rate their number one issue, isn't even a contest. Harris will continue Democratic policies that have brought down inflation and decreased unemployment, and her proposals could lower housing and medical costs. Trump, on the other hand, wants to slap a 20% tariff on imported goods, which would functionally be a massive sales tax that would send inflation spiraling. He also wants to deport millions of workers, which most experts believe would cause an economic crash.
Even Trump's biggest booster, billionaire Elon Musk, agrees that Trump's plans would tank the U.S. economy, causing what, by Musk's own admission, sounds like a second Great Depression. He, as I noted in Standing Room Only, has embraced fascistic logic that crashing the economy would be a purifying ritual that would supposedly allow him and Trump to rebuild from the ashes, but of course, actual economists think that view is completely unfeasible. It should go without saying, but an economic crash doesn't just hurt women, but men.
What Trump is offering men is not concrete or material improvements to their lives. It's just vibes. As Paul Waldman recently wrote in his newsletter, Trump tells men "you are oppressed." The only "solution" Trump offers is permission to act out toxic masculinity "in the most belligerent way possible." But in terms of what will actually make the lives of men better, Trump gives them "precisely nothing." It's worse than that, as I argued last week. Being a misogynist boor may offer temporary gratification, but in the long or even medium term, it will just make men's problems worse. If they're feeling lonely or alienated, being a jerk results in being shunned even more, especially by women. This downward spiral of self-destruction isn't subtle; it is why there are so many "divorced dude energy" jokes about Trump voters. But voting for Trump won't make your wife come back to you.
Trump is a con artist, as evidenced by the eye-popping half-billion judgment against him in New York for decades of business fraud. Tricking men into voting against their self-interest using cheap appeals to toxic masculinity is very on-brand for him. But, as Timothy Noah of the New Republic pointed out, this has been true of Republicans generally for decades. "Democratic officeholders are much likelier to do what voters want than Republican officeholders," he writes, noting that GOP-controlled state governments "routinely ignore voter preferences" but Democratic majorities "work much harder to do what voters want." Studies show Republican voters are often more ignorant of the policies their elected officials pass, suggesting that they are easier to manipulate with empty identity-based appeals.
Trump's base of insecure and ignorant male voters isn't just useful electorally but offers up a steady supply of marks for shady MAGA-related hustles. Trump took time out of his "busy" campaign schedule in August and September to roll out a cryptocurrency scheme, with partners whose profiles were comically on-the-nose: Chase Herro, who calls himself a "dirtbag of the internet" and Zachary Folkman, who sells "how to pick up women" classes online. Herro doesn't hide what he's doing, either, calling cryptocurrency a "scam" and he doesn't care "if it goes to zero" because he'll "make so much money trading these f—-ing coins in and out."
Crypto and MAGA are made for each other because both prey largely on male insecurity with false reassurances to their targets that they're secretly the smart ones for buying into this snake oil that normies — often portrayed as middle-aged moms — turn their noses up to. Some on the left are trying to compete with MAGA's empty pandering by arguing that real masculinity is rooted in the courage to reject bigoted nonsense. In a recent newsletter, Anand Giridharadas tried his hand at such an argument:
Men worthy of the word don’t depend for their self-esteem on the crushing and marginalizing of Others. Men worthy of the word don’t need women to be locked in the fourteenth century legally to feel whole. Men worthy of the word don’t hand over the keys to the future to billionaires who pull the strings.
Certainly, a substantive group of men are stirred by the argument that "real men reject fascism." The latest polls show about 45% of men say they back Harris over Trump. Harris is even 7 points up over Trump with college-educated men, though it's a full 27-point spread towards Harris with college-educated women. But it's also telling that, as with elections past, it seems women are turning out in larger numbers. Politico reports a 10-point gender gap in early voting, as women have cast 55% of ballots, and men only 45%. It's resulting in a major tantrum in right-wing media, with Republican pundits accusing women of somehow betraying men by voting for Harris. In reality, men voting for Trump are betraying the women in their lives, by voting against their basic rights.
Perhaps this is why women turn out more than men: the stakes feel higher for women. It would be nice if both men and women understood the serious economic threat of another Trump presidency, but a confusing media environment has obscured that. But on the "culture war" issues, the situation is clear. Despite all the hysterical proclamations about emasculation, men have nothing to fear from President Kamala Harris. On the flip side, however, Trump has already done immeasurable harm to women's rights and will do significantly more if he's returned to the White House. And in the process, he will not do a single thing to make men's lives better.
