An Occasional Reader sent me an article by Scott Galloway which is an "Endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris". Which argues that men ought to be voting for Kaaaah'mla.
I find Galloway's arguments unpersuasive. Though I've checked out Galloway, someone new to me, and found that he has a lot of sound views on the world -- which is to say, that he agrees with me. Or... I agree with him.
But not on this. Not that men ought to endorse Harris. In fact, they're not endorsing her, as the second article, at bottom, shows.
Which I guess is the reason for Galloway's piece, from a man who clearly is a "Blue no matter Who" kinda guy who has noted the mass defection of men from the increasingly feminised Democratic party. Not surprising that when you keep saying men have "toxic masculiniity", that they desert your party.
Even Dem uber-lord, Van Jones, he of CNN fame, has said "When you insist that all white people are racist, that all men are toxic, that all billionaires are evil, don't be surprised when they desert your party".
Another Dem uber-lord and CNN commenter, David Axelrod, has commented that Harris goes all "Word Salad City" in her public appearances. Yes, we know! And men don't like this. They prefer clear answers, even if they may not agree. CNN are critical.
Then, this guy, Galloway, says this:
This election is — or should be — a referendum on two related things: women’s bodily autonomy and the future of men in the U.S
Really? That's the main reason America should be choosing the leader of the world's most important country? Abortion? The MAIN reason??
Good god almighty, that's the craziest take I've seen on the election. And from a prominent New York intellectual. But then, as George Orwell noted: "Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them".
So.. Abortion should drive the vote. And young men's tender feelings should drive the vote.
Not the economy? Not inflation? Not border security? Not crime? Not DEI policies? Not the Trans radical agenda? Not foreign policy? Not how the new leader will handle foreign threats? Not how the new leader will handle the current wars in the Middle East and Ukraine? Not how he/she will handle NATO and other allies?
No, none of these according to our good intellectual Scott Galloway. It ought to be about Abortion. And how men feel about themselves. We can't treat Galloway as a serious peson on this issue, if that's his stance. I'm sorry, but we can't.
Then, coincidentally, I came across the counter argument, by Alex Gutentag & Michael Shellenberger, both of whom I do know and link below. Which of course is my argument. And it saves me the hassle of making it. Young men should be voting for Trump. So should Jews. And billionaires. And Muslims.
As already we know young Black men are trending Trump. And so should other minorities. And so should we all. For his policies were better in his first term and will be better than Harris' in his second.
Trump is sounder on the economy. He is sounder on squashing inflation. Better on controlling crime. Better on stemming the border invasions. And better too, for Israel and to get out of the Ukraine war. All of these are debatable, but to me, the debate is won. And won by the Orange man.
The counter argument to Galloway: Toxic Femininity And Wokeism Are Driving Men, Jews, Billionaires, and Muslims Away From Harris To Trump
======================
ADDED:
Michelle Obama gave a dark and angry speech in support of Harris, which basically amounted to berating men for not voting for a woman of colour. DEI, much?
At one stage she accused people of "demanding higher standards of Harris vs Trump". But they've also said Trump is Hitler. As in literally. So what is she saying? That people are demanding Harris have higher standards than Hitler?! Oh, dear; your slip is showing....
