Scott Galloway argues the far right recognized the crisis facing young men before the left. While their solutions were regressive—blaming women and minorities—their early diagnosis of the problem created a political vacuum they successfully filled, attracting a disenchanted male demographic.
With three-quarters of mental health providers being women, the field may have a significant blind spot regarding male issues. This gender imbalance can make it difficult for men to feel seen and heard, creating a structural barrier to effective treatment that goes beyond social stigma and pushes them towards toxic online communities.
Galloway reframes masculinity away from aggression toward protection. He argues a man's default instinct, even without fully understanding a group like the trans community, should be to protect them from being demonized. This approach bridges traditional masculine ideals with progressive social values.
Galloway posits that a significant political shift from blue to red occurred among women aged 45-64. He theorizes this is driven by mothers voting for the perceived best interest of their struggling sons or husbands, prioritizing disruptive change over other issues when their family isn't thriving.
Productive conversations about men's struggles are stifled by a societal "gag reflex." This is caused by the far-right co-opting the issue with regressive solutions and the far-left reframing it as men *being* the problem, leading to immediate accusations of misogyny.
While the right promotes a flawed version of masculinity, the left's common response is to suggest men adopt more feminine traits. Galloway argues this is ineffective because it fails to offer an aspirational, positive vision of masculinity, leaving many men feeling alienated and unrepresented.
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.
A recurring political pattern involves well-intentioned progressive policies being implemented without regard for practical consequences (e.g., border management). This creates a political vacuum and public frustration that the far-right exploits, leading to a severe, often cruel, overcorrection that dismantles both the flawed policy and underlying positive intentions.
Unlike previous generations engaged in culture wars, Gen Z's primary political motivation is economic stability. They are less interested in ideological battles and more focused on tangible issues like homeownership, affordability, and securing a financial future.
Political alignment is becoming secondary to economic frustration. Voters are responding to candidates who address rising costs, creating unpredictable alliances and fracturing established bases. This dynamic is swamping traditional ideology, forcing both parties to scramble for a new populist message centered on financial well-being.