John Donvan
This is Open to Debate. I’m John Donvan. Hi everybody. One of the topics we like to look at from time to time, and we’ll continue to do so, is identity politics, and so it is in this episode. At the core of identity politics is the conceit that you can group voters according to some essential characteristic they possess, their race, their sex, their ethnic origins, their educational level, their geographic region, and also, it’s the belief that you can win elections by playing to those groups and promising to represent them and their needs. And so in the last election, the Democratic Party platform, specifically named several groups made up of people who matter to the parties would be policy makers. Native Americans were named, women, uh, people identifying under LGBTQ, the disabled, Black and Latino people, Asian Americans, native Hawaiian, Pacific Island people. But one group it did not name was men, just men.

And while Kamala Harris ultimately started talking about what she called an opportunity agenda for Black men, it again wasn’t about just men overall. Richard Reeves, who has debated with us in fact and specializes in the challenges that face men and boys, made a trenchant point a few weeks before the election writing for Politico. He said this, “The problem seems to be that more men, many men, simply don’t see much recognition of their issues or even of their identity on the political left.” Now, what we know about men in the last election is how they voted. More than half of them voted for Donald Trump, even some who might have been expected to do otherwise. Quoting CBS News, “Exit polling finds that President-elect Donald Trump won White men under 30, the so-called bro vote, by seven percentage points. Also, more young, Black and Latino men voted for Trump this time than voted for him in 2020, even though Harris still had majorities in those categories.”

And on the whole, it could be said that a shift among younger men towards the right, men from Gen Z helped Trump to win the election. Which raises a question for Democrats. Is the party somehow overlooking an opportunity to make a more direct appeal to men as a group, as an identity group? Is there a winning strategy around men waiting to be discovered and put into practice? Or would that just be more identity politics? Which has been proving how successful for the Democrats? In this episode, these are the questions we’re gonna dig into in the form of a debate focused around this specific prompt question, could identity politics help the Democrats engage men? So let’s meet our debaters. First, answering, yes, to the question, could identity politics help Democrats engage men? We have Jackson Katz. Jackson is an educator and author, as well as co-founder of the Young Men Research Initiative. Jackson, welcome to Open to Debate.

Jackson Katz
Thank you, John. Thanks for having me.

John Donvan
And here to answer, no, again to that very same question, I wanna welcome Thomas Chatterton Williams, staff writer at The Atlantic, a visiting professor of humanities at Bard College, and a non-resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and also, a returning debater. Thomas, thanks so much joining us once again on the program.

Thomas Williams
Thanks.

John Donvan
So let’s get onto our opening statements. Um, you are answering, yes, Jackson, identity politics could help Democrats engage men. Here’s your chance, please, to tell us why.

Jackson Katz
Well, first, thank you very much, John, and thank you Thomas. I look forward to this, um, this debate. Um, first, I wanna say I understand that people have concerns. Many people have concerns about dividing people into identity categories and, um, rather than focusing on some universalist concerns like the economy or some other overarching ways in which we are connected. And so I, and I share some of those concerns, but I think, I think it’s important to say that all politics are really identity politics. And I think the reason why we’re having this conversation now is because people are finally realizing, including in the Democratic Party and in the commentariat, they’re finally realizing that the, the failure of the Democrats and progressives more generally and liberals, to talk to men, to speak to men, to, to, to create narratives and stories that include men, including White men in the conversations about politics and about, uh, the social changes that have been happening in our society over the past couple of, uh, uh, decades or few decades.

[NEW_PARAGRAPH]The, the failure of the progressive side of the house to talk about and include men is one of the reasons why Donald Trump was just re-elected. In fact, it’s one of the animating, one of the animating features of the rise of right-wing populism, both in the United States and in in parts of Europe. Uh, an animating feature of that is men, not just White people, but men who are feeling, um, dislocated, they’re feeling pushed off center stage, you know, especially White men who have had cultural centrality for forever really and, and certainly in the West, um, are feeling, um, threats to that centrality both in the family and in the larger society. And if we don’t speak to those concerns, and those, in some cases, resentments and give them a better story, a way to think about themselves as part of the positive changes that are happening, then you’re gonna see them moving to the right, which is what we’ve seen.

Now, when women and people of color and LGT- LGBTQ folks an- and others from marginalized or subordinated groups assert their needs and their interests. They’re often derided as playing identity politics. But when White men and we talk about White men’s needs and interests, somehow, that’s not identity politics. I mean, and I think this is, that’s something we have to look at, which is the ways in which d- the dominant culture sort of, um, prevents itself from being, um, accountable by pretending or by presuming that when, when White, for example, when White men assert their interests, that those aren’t just identity interests, those are broader concerns about things like the economy or immigration or issues. But when people of color or women or LGBTQ folks assert their needs, somehow, that’s identity politics. I think we have to, uh, call that out in a sense, and say that White male identity politics is a central feature of American politics.

And by the way, Donald Trump did not, you know, discover this, or this is not a recent development. The, the Republican Party has pla- been playing White male identity politics for the past 50 years. I made a film about this, it’s called The Man Card: 50 Years of Gender Power and the American Presidency. And it goes all the way back to Nixon and looks at the ways in which the Republican Party has been able to reach out to men and present themselves as the party that, uh, represents the interests of men, not just White men in a, in the, in the sort of post-Civil rights era, but as men in an era of feminist ascendance and LGBTQ challenges to White male hetero- heteronormative centrality.

So, I- I- I think part of this, the issue here is conceptual. We have to think beyond the, the simple categories and, and look more broadly. And by the way, Donald Trump in the 2016 campaign called Hillary, said that Hillary Clinton was playing the woman card when he was in fact playing the man card. And from the moment Donald Trump appeared on the stage, he has been presenting himself as the man’s candidate and MAGA as a men’s movement. And we need to say that out loud.

John Donvan
Thanks you so much, Jackson, for your opening statement. And now, I wanna turn to you, Thomas, you disagree. You believe identity politics cannot help Democrats engage men. Here’s your chance to tell us why you’re taking that side.

Thomas Williams
Uh, thank you and thanks, Jackson. Uh, I think it’s really, um, a very valuable conversation to have someone who’s a specialist, uh, and an expert on um, masculinity like Jackson. Um, in conversation with someone like me who is a generalist and approaches this issue of uh, men, the way I would approach a debate about any other identity group, whether we’re talking about women or Blacks or Latinos or Whites or green people, I think the, the, the, the fundamental point is that, uh, Democrats should be trying to do, um, as little identity politics, um, as possible. Um, I want to recall, uh, two, almost two decades ago, the beginning of the Obama era and the kind of, um, extraordinary mandate that Barack Obama came into office with, which was to unite the coun- the country and lead us into a kind of post-racial, but also, really post-identitarian, um, politics of unity.

Um, we, we, if you look at, uh, the Gallup polls of that time, it wasn’t just that he energized Democrats, it was that he actually captivated the nation as a whole to try to think about what our better self could be. Um, two-thirds of McCain voters back then, um, were happy that Obama won and were, and were optimistic about what he could do. We can’t get into all of the reasons why the, uh, post-racial, post-identity, um, future didn’t, uh, didn’t materialize. But suffice to say, um, Hillary Clinton’s campaign doubled down on a kind of, uh, fragmented, uh, politics of identity and Trump, uh, swept into the nomination and then the presidency in 2016 on a White identity politics of grievance. Uh, we should always recall that identity of politics is a fickle weapon that can be picked up and used by anyone.

The first real, uh, politics of identity in American history was the Ku Klux Klan. So it’s, it’s, it’s, it’s worth, uh, remembering that, uh, the, the main victories, uh, of the left and of Democrats have been the, the Civil Rights Movement and the movement for gay marriage. And these were movements that, uh, sought to extend human flourishing and equality to as many people as possible, as opposed to identifying groups that were marginalized and then prioritizing their specific grievance. The demo- uh, furthermore, the Democrats, uh, focus on identity and victimization has actually created space for dema- demagogues, uh, to paint politics as zero-sum. Uh, if women make progress, that’s at the expense of men, if Blacks make progress, it comes at the cost of White people. We need to fully return to a, a universal, uh, politics of shared values and outrage over injustice, regardless of which identity group it attaches to. For example, when George Floyd died, that should not necessarily excite our imagination any more than when Tony Timpa was killed in almost identical circumstances, and we didn’t think about it at all.

Um, simply adding a seat to the table of victimization for men, uh, will not address the deeper societal fractures or even win sufficient numbers of men back from the nihilism and cynicism that, uh, Trump has shown them. When Kamala Harris got up and talked about having a Glock and, and, and trying to kind of mimic the masculine values that the right espoused, it did not actually work to attract men. The, the core strength of liberalism is it’s universal values that benefit everyone. We need to abandon divisive identity politics. The promised uh, glimpse during the Obama era can still be realized if we return to a, to a politics that maximizes flourishing for all, irrespective of the abstract labels we attach to them.

John Donvan
Thank you very much, Thomas. We’re gonna come up to a break, but very, very briefly before we do, I just wanna see if there’s common ground on, on one issue. American men are having, uh, as a group, are having a, a unique set of, of, of challenges, especially compared to their role in, in their, their position in society in the past, that their health is challenged, that the, that women are outliving men by an even wider margin in terms of lifespan than before. That men are falling behind in education, that men are falling behind in terms of integration into successful family life. A perception that American men are having a tough time, period. And I wanna ask you, Thomas, do you, do you disagree with that assessment? Again, not of what should be done, not of what the politics should be, what the party should do, but just, do we have a baseline agreement that, uh, American men are having, uh, are going through a challenging time.

Thomas Williams
In a qualified way, yeah, sure, that makes sense. Men are fully half of the human population though. So I have kind of instinctive, uh, hesitancy to, to talk, uh, broadly about what men, what 50% of humans are going through, even 50% of Americans. Which men are we talking about? Are we talking about college-educated men? Are we talking about upper-class men? Are we talking about poor men? Well, I mean, we need to get much more specific and granular, I believe, before we can have a productive conversation.

John Donvan
I hear you in that. And again, just as briefly to you, Jackson, do you think that this is a uniquely difficult time for American men?

Jackson Katz
Well, I think that men have issues. I take Thomas’s point, I a hun- 100% agree that you have to s- you have to talk about men not as a monolith, but within sub- subcategories.

John Donvan
Okay. Alright. We’re gonna come up to a break. The question we’re taking on, could identity politics help Democrats engage men? I’m John Donovan this is Open to Debate, and we’ll be right back.

MUSIC
(Music).

John Donvan
Welcome back to Open To Debate. I’m John Donovan. And the question we’re taking on, could identity politics help the Democrats engage men? Our two debaters, uh, Jackson Katz and Thomas Chatterton Williams are taking opposite positions on that. And when we heard in their opening statement, uh, Jackson making the point that, uh, Donald Trump, uh, did play with an identity politics around men, and that that was to the disadvantage of the Democratic Party, he’s saying that it’s time for the Democrats to recognize that men do represent, uh, a group that have their own issues that nee- need to be addressed. Uh, and he’s also arguing overall for a destigmatization of the very term, identity politics.

I’m hearing Thomas Chatterton Williams, uh, say that as a general rule, he just, uh, thinks that the notion of, uh, playing to, uh, identity groups itself, uh, is not something that’s gonna advance the cause of liberalism in, uh, our culture. Uh, that universal values are the core strength and the recognition of universality is the core strength of liberalism. And that identity politics has a history of sometimes really taking directions that people come to regret in the, in the long term. So I wanna, I wanna dig, uh, back into your opening statement, uh, Jackson, what would be the appeal as you see it, to men, that the Democratic Party would make? What would they start to talk about?

Jackson Katz
I mean, I think this is just really pretty basic, just talking about their lives and, and reaching out to them and going into, you know, traditional areas of where, where men, where men reside, if you will, and talking to them. And it’s not just listening, it’s also, it’s also engaging in a dialogue. I, and I do, I wanna dissociate myself from any sense that I’m saying that men are victims or a new victim category is men. I don’t, I’m not, I’m not about that at all. And, and, and I do think it’s important, however, to make distinctions, especially class distinctions for…

So for example, when we talk about the White male vote in the 2024 election, according to exit polls, and I know exit polls are a bit of a fluid target, but, but exit polls show that among college educated White men, uh, Trump beat Biden by 50 to 47. In other words, the college White male vote is very close, but the high school educated White male vote Trump beat Harris by 40 points. And what the, what the Republicans have been doing for decades is running the table with the White high school educated male vote in rural areas, suburban and ru- and, and even urban areas in, in, in huge and overwhelming numbers. In part, not because of policy, not because of the Democratic Party’s policy versus the Republicans Party, Party policy, but because the narrative in the popular political discourse and the ways that the Republicans reach out to White men in those areas has been much more successful.

Can I say, Steve Bannon, who’s one of the, obviously architects of Trumpism, if you will, and one of the strategists, global strategists on the far right for the rise of populism in, in recent uh, years, Steve Bannon says that they’re in a full-on battle for a narrative, everything is narrative. So I would focus on story and narrative and talking to these men and being able to show them how policies, progressive policies will benefit them in helping to do what they think they need to do to fulfill their roles as they see them as men, which is protector and provider. If they can do that, if the Democrats can tell that story, then they’ll have many more me- of those men as allies and not antagonists.

John Donvan
Alright. You said a lot in there and, and what I wanna take back to Thomas, just the recognition, uh, that you’re, you’re saying we should all have, Jackson, that the, uh, Republican Party and, and Donald Trump have actually practiced an identity politics focused on men, and that just as a matter, matter of balancing the, the scale, Thomas, the Democratic Party should be doing the, the same, going after the same group in order to counteract the identity politics of the right. What do you think of that?

Thomas Williams
Well, first of all, I think, of course, the identity politics, uh, is, is used on both the left and the right. But I don’t think that the key is for Democrats to offer a weak simulacrum of, uh, Republican overtures to masculine values. Uh, I just don’t think it’s very authentically convincing when Kamala Harris says, if you come in her house, she’s gonna shoot you with her Glock. I think Bernie Sanders showed that many of his voters did actually end up going towards Trump when they didn’t have a viable alternative on the identity left. So when, you know, you started, uh, John, by asking, you know, can we add, uh, men to the chorus of narratives we already have for LGBTQ people, women, minorities, and by the time you add men, and it sounds to me like we’re just, again, we’re talking to everybody. So why not have a universal narrative that everybody can buy into that benefits everybody?

Jackson Katz
Again, I think there’s this, we have to thread the needle, I think a little better here. I think that I’m saying that we need to include men in a positive story. If we just use gen- you know, gender-neutral terms and universalist themes without specifically saying, we see men, we see White working class men, blue collar men, Black, Latino, Asian, et cetera, struggling. We see that there’s, you know, there’s suicide and, and loneliness epidemic and mental health challenges and opioid addiction that are disproportionately affecting these communities. That doesn’t mean that we’re playing identity politics, we’re just being responsive to the needs of a, of a group of people and we’re articulating that. And I think the big part of what I think men need and including young men, is they need to be seen and heard, and, and they need to feel like the progressives care about them.

Can I say, if you listen, if you pay attention to right-wing media, which I have for almost 40 years, it’s taken as an article of, of faith and just common sense that the Democrats and the, and the left of center hates men, in particular White men. That they don’t, it’s not even a debatable point. They just assume it. The, you know, White men are hated. And, and I think that’s wrong. I- I understand why they think that, but I think it’s wrong. And I think there’s a way to counteract that by saying, wait a second, progressive politics, you know, the k- the kind of policies even that Joe Biden was successful at pushing through is gonna dramatically benefit men, including White men and blue collar men, uh, more generally. And uh, we can also say feminism is not anti-male. That’s another, you know, shibboleth on the right that is constantly repeated as if it’s like an obvious point. And it’s not true.

Feminism is actually one of the best things that’s ever happened to men. But you wouldn’t know that if you listen, if you listen to, you know, Fox or Talk Radio, you, you’d hear the exact opposite, that feminists hate men. Meanwhile, the men’s health movement, which is in a really important way of thinking about men’s emotional, physical, sexual, and mental health that is connected to their gendered, uh, sort of being, and the, the men’s health movement is a small movement, but it’s growing, is a direct outgrowth of the feminist-led women’s health movement, which gave us the intellectual architecture and cultural space to talk about the ways in which gender affected women’s health and the healthcare delivery system. So if we’re gonna talk about a positive conversation about men’s health, which we should talk about, in a, in a general sense, let’s credit that to feminism, which is not anti-male. It’s actually, it’s actually in that, in that sense, pro-male. That’s the kind of narrative that we don’t hear enough of.

Thomas Williams
Can I jump in and just say that where I think, um, I really agree with Jackson and where there’s a lot of overlap is that I think Democrats could make huge gains by simply ceasing to, uh, stigmatize men, uh, in general and specifically, uh, straight White men as a category and return to a kind of neutrality. Which is again, in line with my idea that universal values and principles actually benefit everybody the most. I think that they’ve erred too far in the direction of stigmatizing and, uh, making men feel that they don’t matter in this coalition-

Jackson Katz
Can I? Can I?

John Donvan
Yeah, yeah, g- go for it.

Jackson Katz
Thank you. But I would say one of the challenges the Democratic Party has had since the early ‘1970s, and it continues to this day, is trying to, at the, on the one hand, represent the interest of the ascendant classes, if you will, of women in a feminist era, of LGBTQ folks, of people of color. And at the same time, hold onto the White, if you will, the White working class, which is one of the constitutive parts of the New Deal Coalition. And trying to sort of do both at the same time is, has been the, the biggest uphill challenge, I think, for the Democratic Party-

Thomas Williams
That’s right.

Jackson Katz
… And they’ve failed at it pretty badly. And I think the reason why the politics of the country have moved to the right over the last several decades, and they have, the Overton window has definitely moved to the right, is because the Democrats lose the White male vote so badly in, in election after election. If we don’t figure out a better way to tell this story about that you can do both at the same time. In other words, you can lift up everybody at the same time. But we have to be specific about including men and White men in that lifting ups uh, piece, not just the, the groups that have historically been marginalized.

John Donvan
H- how explicitly Jackson, are you suggesting that the party appeal to White men? I mean…

Jackson Katz
Well, a- again, I want to raise an extremely cautionary flag that Thomas has already raised, that White male identity politics can be played by the right in ways that are completely racist and pernicious and negative. So, I don’t think we have to fully embrace some identitarian politics on the left. That’s not what I would say. I would say that creating inclusive narratives and stories and going into those spaces and talking to these men and having… That’s why I think that’s, it really great when you have progressives and liberals and Democratic Party people going on Fox, going into red states. And I think that people can re, be responsive, but I think showing up is a, is a critical piece of the, of the package here. And by the way, the, the Bernie Sanders, the Donald Trump voters, those of us who are concerned with policy think, oh, what are you kidding? If you, if you supported Bernie Sanders, how can you then support Donald Trump? Because it wasn’t about policy. It was because they responded to Bernie Sanders’ energy and anger and authenticity, not to his policy positions.

John Donvan
Thomas, um, uh, Jackson has made it clear that he’s not arguing for a labeling of men as victims. But he did say that he feels that men are experiencing, your phrase in your opening was a threat to their centrality in the culture. Um, and that that’s, that’s a reality that needs to be, I think you’re saying spoken to and addressed. And I want to take that to you, Thomas. What do you think about, about, you know, addressing that issue head on?

Thomas Williams
Jackson has made several points. Uh, several times, he’s stated the importance and of framing narratives, which I certainly agree with. And I think that, uh, Democrats really need to understand how to create a narrative that’s inspiring and persuasive to men across ethnicities. They need to craft a narrative that shows that in fact, human flourishing is not a zero-sum game. It is not a limited pie that when, um, women get a larger slice, uh, you necessarily give up, um, your slice. I think we need to show how everybody can flourish together by creating, you know, a culture of opportunity. And that’s why I think, once and for all, we need to abandon this kind of pandering.

Uh, my friend Mark Lilla brilliantly wrote, after Hillary Clinton got defeated in 2016, an op-ed in the New York Times, it went viral. And in, one of the, the key points in there was that he said, “I just looked at the DNC website, and they had 17 different platforms, depending on your identity group. If you’re a Latina, you click here. If you’re LGBTQ, click here to see our, our platform.” The RNC had one platform, it was what they were going to do. It might have been something you completely disagree with, but they were clear that this is what we intend to do regardless of what your identity group, your abstract identity group is. And I think Democrats need to get back to that. The enthusiasm that Obama carried in 2008 has never been captured in the kind of, uh, post-Obama Democrat leaning into identitarianism politics that we’ve been subjected to ever since.

John Donvan
So, Jackson, Thomas is suggesting that the, the Democrats should not only not single out men, but they should just stop singling out people by, a, a group, by essential characteristics. What’s your take on that?

Jackson Katz
Again, I think it’s more, that’s more aspirational and almost utopian than, than, than, than in very practical terms. There are interests that people have based on their social position, their subject position, whether, whether women… Like, like are we gonna pretend for example, that abortion rights are not women’s rights like that, that, that, that, that somehow-

Thomas Williams
May I interject?

John Donvan
Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Thomas Williams
That doesn’t work. Uh, appealing to women around the, the, um, issue of abortion actually backfired and Kamala Harris lost ground with women. Trump gained ground on 2020 with women when that was front and center on the agenda.

Jackson Katz
Fine. I mean, that’s a, that’s a practical, political reality that we’re trying to figure out. Like, in other words, how did they miscalculate how important abortion would be for millions and millions of women voters who Trump figured out a, a sort of a sweet sauce where he could figure out a way to narrate his, his own position in a way that they can justify being pro-choice and voting for Donald Trump. I mean, it’s, it’s complicated when you get into the weeds, but I’m just saying there is no doubt that there are specific interests that people have based on their social position that I don’t wanna negate.

John Donvan
One thing we haven’t gotten to, and it’s, it’s a complicated topic, is, is concept of masculinity. And it’s, people define it different ways, people aspire to it in different ways. But Thomas, how does the notion of masculinity in your view, fit into this conversation about what po- the politics around, uh, men in politics should be?

Thomas Williams
That’s a great question. And in fact, uh, what are men’s interests? What are masculine values? American society is so dynamic and complicated, uh, a quarter of the way into the 21st century. I don’t know that we can define those in a way that works with a population that’s 335 million. Uh, Jackson is an s expert on, on masculinity, but I come at this, you know, with a deep, deep skepticism that we can ever articulate what any group’s values or interests are. When you say that, you know, we should defund the police or, you know, look into, you know, limiting police interactions, because that’s in the interest of Black people, you get tons of Black people in poor communities screaming, saying, “Stop doing this. I’m the one living with the violence, put the police back.” So, which is it? Is it, is it soft or hard on crime that helps Black people and is in the interest of that community?

John Donvan
So, um, uh, back to you Jackson, on the masculinity question.

Jackson Katz
Even the term masculinity is, is limiting. I would, I would use a more sociological term which is masculinities, T-I-E-S, which suggests that masculinity is not a singular construct, but there’s a range of different masculinities that are vying with each other. And then, and, and also then competing with each other, but also then in a patriarchal culture, those masculinities are, generally speaking, in a positive position or a powerful position vis-a-vis women. Okay? So it’s, so that’s important to, to acknowledge.

I would say that American culture is very much, uh, a tension. Uh, this is a br- a broad way of thinking about American culture is a broad tension between rugged individualist ideas, which is very masculine versus community. The, the connection and community and the, and the sense of being connected and interdependent, which is k- in a, in a binary terms, is coded as very feminine. And I do think there’s an awful lot of men who are care- very caring and very relational, and want to be involved in the lives of their children, for example, in ways that historically previous generations of men weren’t. There’s all these positive changes. So, I mean, there’s a broader conversation that many of us have been having over the years about how to transform this notion of, quote, “masculinity” in ways that are more life-affirming for men and not just caricatured.

John Donvan
O- one thing we saw that the Republicans do, um, was played to a c- as, as, uh, Thomas suggested played to a certain notion of masculinity. And, and there’s this whole culture now of podcasts that young men are listening to that, uh, Donald Trump certainly went and visited and, and did interviews and that, that Kamala Harris didn’t. She’s been criticized, a little bit from me, perhaps making the wrong choice. But where does, in, in terms of the political game that’s to be played in representing men, what does the Democratic Party do with that culture of podcasts, the kind of conversations they have, and also, the recognition of the kind of masculinity that they claim to be about?

Jackson Katz
Well, again, thank you for asking me. The, the Democratic Party had what? $1.5 billion, and they spent very tiny amount of money. The, the Republicans outspent the Democrats in outreach to young men by something like 10 to one. We need to go into, the Democrats, progressives, liberals need to go into these spaces. They need to go on these shows. They need to create their own shows. They need to create a whole media sort of infrastructure. A lot of people are talking about this, that, that, because young men are not reading, forgive me, Thomas, think pieces in The Atlantic. I read them, but young men are not reading think pieces, and they’re not going to seminars. They’re, they’re listening to Theo Von interviewing Donald Trump, or they’re listening to Joe Rogan interview a, an astrophysicist one day and, you know, and you know, some political figure on the ne- the next day.

And they’re, they’re, they’re watching social media. And by the way, the, the, the, the Trump campaign knows this and what they did, for example, Donald Trump would go to UFC fights and he would show up at the fight knowing, by the way, it’s a, it’s a great photo op. You have thousands of cheering men, mostly men, and, and disproportionately Black and Latino in those spaces. And Donald Trump would walk in, everybody would be cheering. Sometimes a fighter literally in the ring would s- you know, in the, in the square would say, “Donald Trump is in the house.” And everybody would cheer and that would go on social media and get millions and millions of views, which then reinforce the idea that he’s the man’s candidate, we love him, he loves us, and then those people, the Democrats, don’t even have the ti- give us the time of day. So I would say, John, we need to go into those spaces and create our own spaces and talk to those men on their, on their terms.

Thomas Williams
But Bernie Sanders went on Joe Rogan and Joe Rogan endorsed him. I mean, Democrats have already been in those spaces and, you know, can reach with a universal message. They don’t have to pander. I- I- I- I, Bernie Sanders was Joe Rogan’s candidate before he flipped to Trump.

Jackson Katz
I’m sorry, that was a one-off. I- I, Joe Rogan platform’s right-wing voices and anti-feminist voices almost every day. He has one, once occasionally he’ll have a Bernie Sanders on, or he’ll have a Cornel West on, and he’ll agree with them, and then he’ll have a series of right-wing voices the next several days and agree with them at the s- as well. I- I- I’ll say this, I’ll say this for your air, Joe Rogan has never had, as far as I know, a man on, who’s arguing a pro-feminist or a gender equality position, not once, ever, in all the thousands of shows that he’s done. In other words, his audience, which is disproportionately men and young men, have never even heard men articulate that you can be a strong man, a powerful man, and support gender justice and racial justice and feminism. I- I think Joe Rogan is reachable on some level. I think he seems like a reasonable guy, but he hasn’t given anything like the platform like you are doing, John. And, and, and, you know, in this program to this kind of conversation.

Thomas Williams
When, when the candidate was talking about issues that didn’t specify identities as Sanders was, Joe Rogan invited him on, and, and if he in fact is hostile to identity politics overtures, I don’t see how, um, doubling down on those is going to get you to reach his audience on his platform.

John Donvan
All right. We’re gonna come up to a break, and when we return, we’re gonna bring in some other voices, people who think and write about these issues. The question we’re taking on, could identity politics help Democrats engage men? I’m John Donvan, this is Open to Debate and we’ll be right back.

Welcome back to Open To Debate. The question we’re taking on here is, could identity politics help Democrats engage men? I’m John Donvan and our debaters are Jackson Katz and Thomas Chatterton Williams. We’ve been talking about this for quite a while now. Got to some interesting places, but we always get to more interesting places when we bring in other voices to the conversation. So I wanna first welcome Cecilia D’Anastasio. Cecilia is an award-winning journalist with Bloomberg News, where she reports on the video game industry and digital culture. Cecilia, welcome to Open to Debate, and please come in with your question.

Cecilia D’Anastasio
Thank you for having me. Great conversation so far. I wanna start with a video game question. So, over the last decade, we’ve seen gaming companies producing games that don’t center the type of people, the demographic that games have been marketed to for a long time, upper middle-class men. And there’s been some serious backlash to that from that demographic of gamers accusing video game companies of eroding or even taking away their culture. This is a question for Jackson. We’ve seen the same dynamics in politics recently around the DEI backlash. How could the Democratic Party convince young men that centering other perspectives is additive and not destructive?

Jackson Katz
Um, that’s a great question, and I- I- I know that I can’t do it full justice, but I would say one of the, one of the ways that I would reframe the narrative about that set of issues is that it takes more strength on the part of men and, and, in young men to lift up others than it is to dominate others. In other words, being inclusive is actually a quality that you should aspire to. It’s not softness, it’s not weakness, it’s actually strength.

And, and, and, and you, some people might say, well, why, why do you have to use that kind of terminology? I think because I’m very practical, I think we need to use that kind of terminology because it’s positive and aspirational. And by the way, we’re deep into this conversation, and we had not even, the, the word has not even been mentioned, toxic masculinity. I never even used the term toxic masculinity in my work, in my writing. I think it’s a problematic term because even though I know what it means, and a lot of other people know what it means, I think if the goal is to, is to have a, an, a, a, an open and honest conversation with men and young men, it, it pushes the wrong buttons.

John Donvan
Thomas, you wanna respond? Uh-

Thomas Williams
Well, I- I don’t have strong views on video gaming, but I do think that, you know, some of the, uh, frustration around w- we can say DEI or, or, or, or what’s happened in movies and Hollywood and, and entertainment and I guess, video games as well, is what feels like an inauthentic, uh, need to just take anything and, and make the character into XYZ category. Uh, whether it’s a remake of a film or whether it’s a Marvel comic superhero, is it, it, there’s something that feels false. And I think the superlative of that movement in the culture is like Google Gemini, uh, when you ask them to draw a picture of the Founding Fathers, it’s, it’s, it’s like just African American men and disabled women. Uh, you know, this is like the, the extreme of the tendency to just diversity, diversify the culture for its own sake.

John Donvan
Cecilia, thanks so much for joining us. Next up, we have a question from Amanda Clayton. Amanda is assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at UC, Berkeley. Amanda, thank you so much for uh, joining us on the program, and please come on in with your question.

Amanda Clayton
Great. Thank you for having me, and thank you for this conversation. Given that we’re in this place where identity politics is being activated by the right, I think the question really is how should Democrats respond? And personally, I think it’s about embracing the working class roots of the Democratic Party. That is an authentic way that the party can respond. And I think that’s what Joe Biden did so well in, in 2020. Um, that’s what Bernie Sanders has been able to do so, so well. Um, and so this leads me to my question, though, is I don’t know whether or not this messaging can really be done by people on the left that don’t themselves come from these roots and aren’t themselves White men. Uh, so where does that leave the Democratic Party if they also want to, at the same time, embrace diversity in their leadership?

Jackson Katz
I’m in support of what you’re saying. I mean, there’s this, the great book, Rust Belt Union Blues, which talks about the, um, the decline of the, of the, of the union movement in Western Pennsylvania. And how what used to be connecting working class, including White working class men, was not just the actual workplace, but all the other, you know, the union halls and the, and the, and the bowling leagues and all the ways in which the men were connecting through unions and, and then a class consciousness was being formed. And of course, those men, those, those, uh, unions were supporting mostly the Democrats because these Democrats are more pro-union, obvious- obviously, than the Republicans.

But, but because with the decline of unionism, now these men are connecting through gun clubs. This is the, with the argument of Rust Belt Union Blues and gun clubs, which are more, tend to be more right wing. And, you know, Fox News is playing in the, in the gun club and, but it’s meeting a need of these people for connection. So I think the, the, the, the, the, the decline of unions and especially, you know, manufacturing unions and sort of blue collar trade unions, which were dominated by White men to the exclusion of women and people of color. And I understand that that’s one of the tensions in the union movement over the years. But the decline of unionism was one of the reasons why there’s been a, a, a sort of a shift to the right on the, among the, among the White working class, because they didn’t have a way to connect with each other and they didn’t have the inputs, the progressive inputs and the class consciousness that, that are shaped by those kind of associations.

But I would say yes, we need to do to, to, to to, have a very much a class focus. And I think obviously, the Democratic Party needs to be much better at articulating a, a, a progressive working class politics. But I do think there are gender aspects of that that have to be acknowledged just like we, Thomas and I were talking about earlier.

John Donvan
Thomas, if you can take on the same question, I’m also curious whether you think an appeal to the working class would itself be a form of identity politics or not?

Thomas Williams
Well, I mean, we can, yeah, we can say that, you know, there are many facets of identity that one can, you know, emphasize or de-emphasize. And I think that actually, broad ba- based class coalitions, uh, which cut across, you know, uh, immutable characteristics is, uh, is, is a healthier kind of, uh, identity politics as it were, to, to pursue if you have to. Um, obviously, you have to, you know, people have to, politics is coalitional. So I think something rooted in class, uh, can be quite effective. I think Bernie Sanders demonstrated twice the appeal of that. And, uh, you know, I think that Donald Trump has even to an extent, demonstrated the appeal of that this time.

I don’t fully, uh, concede the point that we cannot return to a kind of, uh, um, optimistic, um, transcendent politics of unity. Uh, that can even be led by a non-White, uh, candidate, uh, such as we saw in 2008. I think the country, and in fact, the globe, you know, I live in, I live half the year in France, and you know, the, it cannot be overstated. The, the entire world was captivated by the, the ascendance of Barack Obama. It gave us a glimpse into something that we wanted to see in our own politics.

John Donvan
Thank you very much, Amanda, for your question. Great question. Got us to a really interesting place. Um, now we’re gonna hear a question from Mike Nellis. Mike Nellis is former senior advisor to Kamala Harris and founder of Authentic, which is a digital fundraising, um, and advertising agency for democratic candidates and social impact causes. Mike was not able to join us live, but he sent in a question ahead of time, and that’s what we’re gonna hear and watch now.

Mike Nellis
Hi, I’m Mike Nellis, one of the founders of White Dudes for Harris. Democrats have embraced identity politics over the last decade, but have been very hesitant to organize specifically with White men. That’s part of the reason that they’ve moved in the opposite direction. If Democrats are gonna continue to do this, if that’s the best strategic choice for the party, how do they get beyond being too afraid to organize with White men, rural voters, and even to a certain degree, White women? Thank you.

John Donvan
Thanks very much for that question, Mike. I’m gonna take that, uh, first to you, Jackson.

Jackson Katz
We have to do both. We have to have blue collar, we have to have trusted messengers. If, you know, this is a basic concept in advertising and public health, if you want to send out a message, you have to have trusted messengers, people who can identify with, you know, who you can identify with. And you, I don’t want to overly caricature this because people can hear messages from different people on different subject positions and, and races and ethnicities and genders and sexual orientations, but they also want to connect with people that they can connect with.

And so, yeah, getting blue collar men out into the blue collar neighborhoods and getting blue collar candidates running for office in, you know, White rural areas. I mean, these are all part of, you know, part of b- party building over, over, you know, years and decades. It’s not gonna happen overnight. But I do think it’s important that we have those voices and that the Democratic Party lifts up those voices and doesn’t see that by, just by giving voice to some of the concerns of men and White men that you’re somehow excluding or, or saying that it’s not important to lift up the voices of others who have been historically marginalized as well.

John Donvan
Thomas?

Thomas Williams
I mean, I think the results speak for themselves of what, uh, White Dudes for Harris was able to accomplish. Um, I think that people on the left, liberals, democrats specifically, um, anyone of goodwill in a society such as ours should be leery at least of a politics that activates a, a racialized sense of identity within White people and White men specifically. I want to reiterate, the first identity politics movement in America was the Ku Klux Klan. It was a successful movement that mobilized White identity. I think that the future belongs to, uh, the movement that understands how to activate the, the, the, the features that unite us across ethnicity and de-emphasizes all, uh, immutable characteristics that divide us and that cannot be transcended.

John Donvan
I now wanna go onto to, uh, our last questioner, and that is Danielle Kurtzleben. Danielle is a political correspondent on NPR’s Washington Desk. Danielle, thanks so much for joining us, um, and thanks for listening to the conversation so far. I’ve been very interested to see what kind of question you would come up with, so please come in and do that.

Danielle Kurtzleben
Oh, this has been, I… Look, I have nine questions, but-

John Donvan
(Laughs).

Danielle Kurtzleben
I’ll just give you one. (Laughs) um, yes, this year, the Democratic Party understandably talked a lot about women because Dobbs. And I wanna bring in another thing we really haven’t mentioned much yet in ter- in all this talk of Bernie and Obama, which is that the Democratic Party has now had two women at the top of the ticket since those guys.

So, I think in the popular imagination, for a lot of voters, the Democratic Party is quite frankly, the feminine party, the more feminine of the two parties. So I’m wondering, to what degree do you two feel that that precludes a certain chunk of men from coming over to the Democratic Party? I- I guess I’m wondering, is there a sort of male flight from the Democrats as it becomes the party of girls? Uh, and I say that flippantly, of course.

John Donvan
(Laughs).

Danielle Kurtzleben
And this is a question for both of you, because on the one hand, Jackson, this would put into question the whole idea of whether male identity politics could work, but also Thomas, because you’ve held up Bernie and Obama as these unifying examples, but since those two guys, things have changed so drastically, there have been women candidates and Dobbs has changed the equation.

John Donvan
Thomas, why don’t you go into that one first, please?

Thomas Williams
Sure. Well, thank you for the question. It’s actually, it’s, it’s quite, um, thoughtful and I think it’s an important one to, to answer and to think through. But, you know, Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by over 3 million votes by more than he beat Kamala Harris by, so I- I- I don’t think that, uh, we are not a country that’s prepared to vote for, for a qualified and, and charismatic, uh, female candidate. Um, I think that Kamala Harris had specific, uh, problems as a candidate that some of which were outside of her control, that were not, um, about her gender. They were about being attached to Joe Biden, who became one of the most unpopular presidents in modern American history, uh, as well as just the kind of bias against incumbents, uh, worldwide that we’ve been seeing.

So I actually do think that, uh, the country, uh, could easily elect a, a female candidate. I think it’s quite possible that the first female president might be conservative as often is the case. But, um, I- I- I really think that, uh, the fact that women, uh, broke for Trump o- over their 2020 numbers with, uh, abortion, um, so, uh, front and center, should give us all pause about thinking that people vote first and foremost, based on their gender, ethnicity or etc.

John Donvan
Jackson, to you, please.

Jackson Katz
Um, well, yeah, th- tha- thanks for the question, um, uh, Danielle, you know, we have to be acknowledge that Trump has been playing and the Republicans have been playing identity politics successfully for decades. And that if we don’t, if we don’t figure out a how to, on the progressive side, how to do not what they’re doing, not, not the, not the, uh, you know, the, the, the sort of funhouse mirror other side of, of what Trump is doing, but create narratives that would bring more men in, we are going to, we’re gonna be increasingly polarized in this way, in the way that Danielle’s question suggests. I would say we don’t have to get a massive number of men to join from the, you know, including White men to, to, to, uh, to step back over from the sort of the MAGA universe and into some sort of pro-feminist Democratic Party.

We just need a small percentage. I mean, I always talk about five to 10%, even, you know, even less than that would, would be a tipping point if we could get, pull back a certain number of men who are not drawn into the narrative that a real man is a Republican, that me- a lot of men see that as silly. And if we could draw some of those men back in including independents, then the Democrats would, would have enough votes to, to win elections and then be able to promote legislation that affects everybody in a positive way, in the universalist way that, that Thomas is talking about.

So, I- I don’t think we have to, you know, I- I always say we’re not, I’m not unrealistic. I’m not saying we need to go to a MAGA rally and try to recruit men into-

John Donvan
(Laughs).

Jackson Katz
The Democratic Party, into progressive politics, but I think there’s en- enough men who are sort of not fully Trumpers, Trumpers, but who end up voting for Trump that we can, we can, we can create a narrative that will bring them back into the progressive side of the house.

John Donvan
Danielle, thank you so much for your question, but now, it is time to bring this all home with our closing round. Jackson for your closing statement, you are up first.

Jackson Katz
Thanks, John. And again, thank you Thomas, for this discussion and, and debate. Um, I’ve enjoyed it and I hope it’s, uh, I hope it’s useful. I do have to say in a very optimistic way that the results of this last election are making a lot of people pay more attention to the narrative that we’re using about men, because the disaster of right wing, the, the rise of the right in Europe and the United States, and what’s gonna, what’s coming is now making people realize, wait a second, we need to do better. And I think this is one of the ways to do it, is to access stuff that’s already been thought about and written about and struggled with.

And finally, I wanna say, there’s an awful lot of pressure on men, including young men, and I’m, I’m part of the Young Men Research Initiative, we’re looking at young men. We started in early ’24. There’s a lot of pressure on young men to conform to being a, a Trumper or being in MAGA or certainly voting right-wing, not because they care about those issues, the issues, by the way, young men are progressive on a whole range of issues, but in terms of their party identification, in terms of their voting choices. There’s an awful lot of pressure on them because if they don’t sign on to sort of Trumpism, their, their masculinity is called into question. They’re called, you know, beta males and cucks and soy boys. And right-wing media is filled with these epithets that are thrown at men and young men who don’t get with the Trump program.

I would say that men who think that this is nonsense and absurd and abusive, it’s schoolyard bullying, need to speak up because we can’t expect that young men are gonna have the courage and the strength and the self-confidence to challenge that level of pressure and bullying if they don’t hear adult men in the public conversation talking about this. And so I think we need to say that men who stand up to Trumpism, who stand up to the bullying of MAGA is actually a, a measure of their strength and their integrity and their social justice consciousness. It’s not a, it’s not a measure of them being weak or soft, it’s actually in a, they’re, they’re asserting their, their sort of the dignity in the ways that are life-affirming. And so we have, we have to say that, but we need more men to say that, not just women.

John Donvan
Okay. Jackson, I’m sorry to jump in. I, you’ve hit time on that. I wanna turn it over to Thomas and Thomas, you get the last word to make your closing statements in the debate.

Thomas Williams
Thank you, John, and thank you, Jackson. I actually, I really, um, think that this is a conversation where we probably agree on much more than we disagree with, but the disagreement I thought was productive and, and really respectful. So, thank you for that. And I just want to end on the point that you just cannot ever predict where identity politics will lead you. In 2015, Donald Trump descended the golden staircase quite explicitly, demonizing Mexicans as rapists and criminals. And by 2024, Latino men broke to him by 19 percentage points. We talked already about abortion being on the table, and women broke to Donald Trump, uh, knowing full well what that means for reproductive justice. In the final stretches of the campaign, and what I thought was, I thought it was a low point explicitly targeted Black men as men and as Blacks, uh, with her opportunity agenda, offering them opportunities in the cannabis industry and with cryptocurrencies. And they broke by two percentage points towards Donald Trump. It meant nothing to them.

I think it’s a much more solid proposition to say, think through what you actually believe in, have a positive vision that articulates what the best American multiethnic future can be and how we can live up to it. And then live and fight for those values. And don’t pander and fragment your message through a million different kaleidoscope lenses trying to capture everybody through immutable characteristics. Let’s be Americans together. There’s more that unites us than divides us. That’s a winning politics, and that’s the essence of liberalism that the Democrats must recapture.

John Donvan
Thank you very much, Thomas. And that is a wrap on this debate. I want to thank both of you, uh, Jackson Katz and Thomas Chatterton Williams. And I want to give a thanks to our audience for tuning into this episode of Open To Debate. Thank you for listening.

Uh, you know, I just wanna remind you that as a nonprofit, we are working to combat extreme polarization through what we do, civil debate. Our work is made possible by listeners like you and by The Rosenkranz Foundations and by supporters of Open to Debate. This debate was produced with the support of Civis, advancing the common good through investment in cultural activities that tackle pressing social issues and examine our common humanity and interdependent futures. You can get more information at Civisfdn.org.

Robert Rosenkranz is our chairman. Our CEO is Clea Conner. And Lia Matthow is our chief content Officer. Elizabeth Kitzenberg is our Chief Advancement Officer. This episode was produced by Jessica Glazer, Julia Melfi, and Marlette Sandoval editorial and research by Gabriella Mayer and Tom Bunting. Andrew Lipson and Max Fulton provided production support. And the Open to Debate team also includes Gabrielle Iannucelli, Annalisa Cochrane, Rachel Kemp, Erik Gross, Mary Regus, and Linda Lee. Damon Whittemore mixed this episode. Our theme music is by Alex Clement, and I’m John Donvan. We will see you next time on Open To Debate.