The 2016 Election and Middle Class White Males

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/10/elizabeth-warren-faces-president-trump-with-rachel-maddow-no-compromise-on-bigotry.html

Warren says:

As for the protests that have sprung up across the country in opposition to Trump, Warren said, “People are upset and they’re right to be upset. This is our country, and people have a right to have their voices heard.” But, she added, “we also have an obligation to listen.” Not necessarily to Trump, but to those who decided to vote for him despite his “bigotry.”

Comment:

Warren is right about listening to those who voted for Trump despite his bigotry. People need to see the Democratic Party working on their behalf. The party lost badly among men and especially badly among white men in particular. Why? It is pretty simple. The Party has become increasingly hostile toward men in general, and white men in particular. There are many members of the Party that that have adopted some of the radical women's movement practices of disparaging men by spewing "male privilege" and disparaging white men in particular by spewing " white male privilege" in any discussion of any societal problem (e.g.Ref[1], Ref[2]). While it is true that Democratic politicians generally do not use these terms themselves, it is also true that they have not discouraged the use of these terms among members of the Party. By their silence, the Democratic politicians are complicit in disparaging men. The liberal wing of the party is so focused on the mantra of "white male privilege" that white males have essentially been deserted by the party.

While it is easy to list many things that the Party has done to help women, it is hard to list things that the Party has done to help men. Even what "benefits" to men I have heard liberals mention seem to be solely side effects of policies designed to help women. The fact that men are affected by policies meant to help women is largely unavoidable. There can occasionally be some benefits to men, but that is not the purpose of the policies. There are also some deleterious side effects on men that the Party just seems to accept as some kind of acceptable collateral damage in the attempts to help women.

Are there any efforts that the Party has made that were directed specifically at improving men's lives in the same way the Party directs efforts specifically at improving women's lives? I cannot think of a single one. If there have been any attempts, the Party should do a better job of communicating attempts specifically directed at improving men's lives, just as the Party does with attempts specifically directed at improving women's lives.

It is a good guess that middle class males, especially white middle class males, are not voting for Republicans because Republicans have done much for them. How have Republican policies helped middle class men? Republican policies have not improved the lives of middle class men any more than Democratic policies. This is actually good news for the Democratic Party as many of these men have no real attachment to the Republican Party. Middle class men will return to the Democratic Party when two things happen. First, the liberal wing of the Party should stop the outright hostility toward men in favor of welcoming men. Second, the Party actually needs to show men that the Party is acting on their behalf, at least a small fraction of the time (say 20%?), if it expects men to vote Democratic. 

Winning elections is going to remain difficult as long as the Democratic Party remains hostile to men and the only "benefits" to men that the Party can point to are simply side effects of policies to help women.