Amid the results of recent elections, the Republican Party is at a moment of decision — that of devising an identity that will lead it away from the sting of loss and toward electoral victory. Given the symbiotic relationship between the GOP and the broader conservative movement, the movement’s own direction is sure to be influenced by the rhetorical strategy and priorities of the party.
And given underwhelming results for Republicans both in the 2022 midterms and in this year’s off-year state elections, one of the common talking points among the “intelligentsia” has been that Republicans and conservatives need to reorient themselves to appeal to women, particularly suburban women. And for such intellectuals, this means abandoning a pro-life stance in favor of a pro-abortion one.
This author has previously deconstructed the erroneous argument that abortion is the cause of the GOP’s recent woes. The left-wing media establishment, which is known to favor abortion, clearly was terrified by the major pro-life gains made following the overturning of Roe v. Wade and would love nothing more than to convince conservatives to give up the fight which they had actually been winning until recently. Sadly, the media is seeing some success in this mass gaslighting campaign.
But just as the Right should not fall for the media’s false narrative regarding abortion, it should also refrain from succumbing to the bad advice about where to focus its efforts.
Naturally, correct principles benefit everyone. Conservatives should be unwavering in their convictions — the Constitution, limited government, biblical morality — and make the case in the public square that these ideas will improve the lives of all members of society, regardless of age, race, or sex.
Conservatives and the GOP should not pander, which means compromising on values in order to curry favor with a given voting bloc — which is what the media says should be done on abortion for the sake of winning over suburban women.
Nevertheless, appealing to a given demographic is different from pandering. One can appeal, without pandering, by sticking to principles while tailoring the messaging regarding those principles in a way that resonates with the group in question.
And at this time, despite what the talking heads might say, the group conservatives must appeal to above all others is the country’s young men.
The media likely understand the importance of winning over young men, which is why they want the Right to mistakenly focus their efforts elsewhere. For the reality is that anyone throughout history who has wanted to effect real political or social change has first had to win over the young men. The reason is simple: It’s young, able-bodied men who have the energy and vitality to get things done — and to fight for a cause when conflict arises.
This has always been the case, for good and ill. Those who founded authoritarian regimes understood this principle and leveraged it in their rise to power. In pre-World War II Europe, both fascism and communism were largely movements of the youth. Mussolini’s Blackshirts, for example, were young landowners, intellectuals, and former military.
Even Encyclopedia Britannica notes:
Partly because they made concerted appeals to young people, fascist parties tended to have younger members than most other rightist parties [Britannica makes the common mistake of placing fascism on the right, rather than on the left with other statist ideologies]. The leadership of the Nazi Party, for example, was relatively young, and junior officers in the German army often went over to fascism sooner than senior officers. Corneliu Codreanu, leader of the Iron Guard in Romania, was only 31 when he founded the movement in 1930, and his major lieutenants were in their 20s. Similarly, Primo de Rivera was only 30 when he founded the Falange, and in 1936, 60 to 70 percent of his followers were under 21.
A more recent example is the Taliban: One of the key qualities of the Taliban often neglected is that, despite its reputation for being radically traditionalist and conservative with regard to religion and male-female social dynamics, it has primarily been a movement of young men. When the organization began, it largely consisted of students (ṭālib) from the Pashtun areas of eastern and southern Afghanistan who had been educated in traditional Islamic schools.
Thus, the role played by young men in the success of a political movement cannot be overstated.
Conservatives have a unique opportunity to appeal to young American men, many of whom are in search of faith, tradition, the sense of belonging that comes from national identity, and many other ideals that are naturally found in conservatism. Many young men feel lost because society has largely vilified and ostracized them in favor of feminist ideas such as “toxic masculinity” and “women’s liberation.”
As a result, many young men have been drawn to online influencers such as Andrew Tate and Nick Fuentes. The young men who rally behind such figures are lured by the validation they receive and the promise of answers to the social ills they are personally confronted with.
Ultimately, leaders in the freedom movement should strive to understand the appeal of such influencers and make efforts to show America’s young men that the constitutionalist movement has the answers they are looking for.
