National service offers a structured "gap year" for boys, whose emotional maturity often lags their development. It acts as a "societal take-two," providing a second chance to mature and find direction without immediate academic or career pressures, specifically addressing a cohort in crisis.
Curtis Sliwa argues that true masculinity isn't defined by symbols of power like guns but by a commitment to protecting the vulnerable—the poor, elderly, and infirm. He frames it as a moral responsibility to risk one's life for strangers, a form of humanitarian service that stands in stark contrast to conventional notions of strength.
Current fiscal policies represent a massive wealth transfer from young to old. Framing national service as a direct, large-scale investment in youth counteracts this economic imbalance, shifting national priorities and resources back to the next generation, effectively fighting a 'generational war' through policy.
When raising boys, a father's actions are far more impactful than his words. Instead of lecturing on what it means to be a man, consistently demonstrating service, respect, and responsibility will be internalized by a son over time, even if the lesson isn't explicit or is initially met with embarrassment.
Galloway advocates for 'redshirting' boys—starting them in kindergarten at age six while girls start at five. This policy addresses the biological reality that boys' prefrontal cortexes mature more slowly, better aligning educational demands with their developmental stage and potentially improving academic outcomes.
While young men may be fans, it's their mothers who are the most effective supporters and advocates for addressing the issues facing them. Mothers see firsthand when their sons are struggling compared to their daughters, making them a powerful and credible cohort for advancing the conversation productively.
A key reason for past legislative success was that leaders shared a common identity forged in military service. Reinstating mandatory national service could create 'connective tissue' among diverse young people, fostering a unified identity as citizens first and foremost, before individual identity groups.
Universal childcare is argued to be a pro-male policy. By reducing economic strain on families, a primary driver of divorce, it helps keep families intact. Given that men suffer disproportionately from post-divorce mental health crises, this reframes childcare from a “women's issue” to a critical support system for men's well-being.
Manhood isn't an age but a state of being generative: producing more jobs, love, and care than you consume. This reframes masculinity around contribution rather than status or age, offering a clear, actionable goal for young men to strive for.
The struggles and pathologies seen in young men are not just an isolated gender issue. They are a leading indicator that the broader societal belief in upward mobility—'we can all do well'—is eroding. This group is the first to react when reliable paths to success seem blocked.
The crisis facing young men is fundamentally economic. Their declining viability as providers prevents family formation, a cornerstone of societal stability. This economic frustration leads to anger and radicalization, making the "lonely, broke young man" a uniquely destabilizing force in society.