Scott Galloway: Why young men quietly leave the Democrats

Galloway argues that swing male voters—especially young men—will respond more to visions of what it means to be a man than to policy PDFs. He characterizes the far-right’s pitch as ‘provocative, aggressive, speak your mind, be tough,’ which many young men find more aspirational than what he sees on the far-left: ‘be more like a woman.’ He believes Democrats are missing an opportunity to frame masculinity positively around three roles—provider, protector, procreator—and to link that explicitly to their economic agenda and defense of bodily autonomy.

By metrics like GDP growth, stock market dominance, energy production, and unemployment, the U.S. is outperforming other G7 economies. Yet most of the gains are accruing to the top 1%, while the average American under 40 is ~24% less wealthy than 40 years ago and the average 70-year-old is ~72% wealthier. Home ownership, childbearing, and independent living are all down among the young. This divergence fuels rage, shame, and a perception that the country is ‘headed in the wrong direction,’ even though macro numbers look strong.

Because small-dollar donations flow to viral, incendiary clips, Galloway says incentives now reward ‘performers’ rather than legislators: say something extreme, trigger your base, get clipped for TikTok, and raise money. This dynamic, amplified by algorithms that prioritize rage over nuance, crowds out serious policy discussion—like explaining to young people how today’s deficits are effectively tomorrow’s taxes on them—and deepens polarization. He notes this cycle also shifts power from general elections to primaries in gerrymandered safe districts, sending more extremists to Congress.

Citing data showing Republicans’ share of young men rising from 35% (2016) to 48% (2023), Galloway contends the main story is a ‘flight from’ the Democratic Party. He points to the DNC’s ‘Who We Serve’ page listing 16 demographic groups but omitting young men, despite them leading negative stats: 3 of 4 homeless people are men, men are three times more likely to die by suicide, 12 times more likely to be incarcerated, and now often earn less than young women. Families see sons struggling and perceive Democrats as ‘fighting for everyone except them,’ while Republicans and Trump at least rhetorically acknowledge them.

He credits race-based affirmative action with historic progress, but argues it’s now creating new resentments and misallocations (e.g., wealthy non-white students benefiting while poor white kids do not). He favors systems like the University of California’s ‘adversity score,’ which focus on socioeconomic background and resilience. Under such a regime, most current non-white beneficiaries (who are disproportionately poorer) would still qualify, while affluent non-whites would lose some advantages and low-income whites would gain access. He believes Democrats should reorient rhetoric and policy toward the middle class and economic disadvantage instead of identity silos.