Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Why are younger men so right wing?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
It’s funny that you don’t see the irony of your idiotic post. |
Anonymous
Basic logic and history are a little much for you, huh? |
Anonymous
Who was voting liberals into office before women had the vote? Hint: WOMEN DID NOT HAVE THE VOTE then. So it was men voting liberals into office. What liberals? Lincoln for example was progressive, pro-labor, anti-slavery, pro-federal power. The liberal side of 1860 and 1864 and so on, through Teddy Roosevelt, progressive Bull Moose. Many men supported progressive causes like being pro-labor and so on, enough to win national elections without women having the vote. Whoever told you men are supposed to be conservative or were historically always conservative is ignorant of history. |
Anonymous
The Confederacy wasn’t exactly a hotbed of liberalism. And men voted conservatives into office prior to 1920. Are you trying to claim that liberals won every election ever until Calvin Coolidge? |
Anonymous
The point you're missing is that prior to Womens Suffrage we had quite a few elections involving a more conservative candidate and a more progressive / liberal candidate, and in many of those instances the progressive / liberal candidate won. And they won because men voted for them. And to your point, the Confederacy was the conservative side. Confederacy = preserve existing social order, maintain rigid racial hierarchy, small government etc vs Union = pro-labor, anti-slavery, progressive, less social strictures, more infrastructure and bigger government, and so on. The labels "Republican" and "Democrat" back then had virtually nothing to do with what they stand for today but the actual values and ideas can be easily mapped to conservative vs liberal / progressive. As for why the party labels became meaningless, read up on the Southern Strategy and some of the other history of how those tides have changed over the years. |
Anonymous
…..Okay? You keep wandering away from your original point and not definitively proving anything, other than that 19th century men were sometimes liberal and sometimes conservative. |
Anonymous
Wasn't my point at all. It was a response to the PP who falsely claimed this:
Pretty abundantly clear that this is absolutely not the case. |
Anonymous
DP, that wasn’t my post. But it’s equally false to claim that all men naturally lean left, given that historically, men have defended the status quo and been gatekeepers of who has access to power. If they were naturally left, there would have been much less bloodshed and suffering when women and blacks fought for civil rights. (Many women vocally opposed desegregation too, but by and large men were the decision makers and the ones holding the firehoses). Are men more left wing now than 100 years ago? I’d say in general yes, but at the same time, those on the right have moved even further right. It’s complicated and probably divided along class lines, or rural/urban lines. |
Anonymous
Nobody here ever said men naturally lean left. There was only a claim that they lean right. The reality of it is that men vote on both sides of the spectrum. |
Anonymous
DP... Wage stagnation and high housing costs aren’t caused by migrants, and economists across the political spectrum have been saying this for decades. The biggest drivers are corporate concentration, declining worker bargaining power, financialization of housing, and policy choices that favor capital over labor. Wages began stagnating in the late 1970s, long before today’s immigration patterns, and the timing lines up almost perfectly with the decline of unions, deregulation, outsourcing, and the shift toward shareholder‑first corporate governance. That’s why productivity kept rising while pay flatlined: not because workers were replaced by migrants, but because the gains were captured at the top. Housing costs tell the same story. Prices exploded not because immigrants “took houses,” but because Wall Street firms, private equity, zoning restrictions, and decades of under‑building created artificial scarcity. In many cities, the biggest landlords are investment funds buying entire neighborhoods, not families arriving from abroad. Migrants don’t set interest rates, restrict housing supply, or buy up thousands of units at a time, institutional investors do. The cartoon actually gets it right: the person with hundreds of coins is pitting the other two against each other to avoid scrutiny. Blaming migrants is a convenient distraction from the real structural forces that have been squeezing workers of every race for 40 years. The data is clear: immigration has little to no effect on long‑term wages, and housing inflation is overwhelmingly driven by policy and capital, not people. |
Anonymous
Um, we can read:
But, let’s just agree to agree. |
Anonymous
+1 |
Anonymous
How so exactly? We are late 30’s (so not “young”) and DH does not feel ostracized. He has know idea why other white men like Trump. |