Season Nine, Episode 4 July 28, 2024

SPEAKER_01 0:02

This is the Listening Tube.

SPEAKER_00 0:08

Hello. Thank you for putting your ear to the listening tube. I'm your host, Bob Woodley. On this episode, we'll hear about 17th Century Law Fair, the final solution, and the premature announcement of the demise of the radio star. And I'll talk to a man who wrote a book about how the Democratic Party can get men back. I'll ask them why they left.

SPEAKER_01 0:38

But first,

Not the Headlines

SPEAKER_01 0:39

not the headlines.

SPEAKER_00 0:42

Last Sunday, I recorded and produced and released the last episode of The Listening Tube, as I do most Sundays for more than two years now. Within a few hours of its release, President Biden posted on X that he would not be running for a second term as Leader of the United States of America. History was made that day in a way that hadn't happened before. Some media outlets tried to find a similar occasion, specifically LBJ, but the fact is nothing like this has ever happened in American presidential politics. Those on the right contend that a coup has occurred, that the will of the people has been subverted by a consortium of liberal leaders. The argument is valid. Joe Biden had already been through the primaries and won the right to be the nominee. It seemed to me that Joe had the Democratic Party by the balls because it was he and he alone who would decide who Donald Trump's opponent would be. And he was convinced it would be him. Not many more than twenty four hours earlier was the Biden camp insisting he would stay in the race, Sans' divine intervention. Suddenly, I was faced with the frightening prospect of the podcast I had worked on for up to 15 hours had become obsolete within hours of its release. I knew I had used two sound bites from President Biden in the episode. After some careful recollection of the subject matter, I felt confident that the episode was still valid and topical. I was relieved. For a fleeting moment. Then I had to wonder what all this meant. We all did. It's almost as if America expressed a collective, what the hell just happened? While those of us who are more or less casual observers were still wondering, the legacy media seemed to make a very coordinated pivot. The same media that was telling us that Joe Biden was fine is now telling us that he was America's greatest president, and it's time to pass the torch. I'm getting some mixed signals. We only have to go back as far as the Robert Herr interviews to establish that President Biden could be referred to as someone who is losing cognitive abilities. So much so that no charges were warranted for illegal possession of classified documents. Meanwhile, we were assured that he was in full control of his faculties and the country was in good hands. We all wanted to believe it was. Now we're not sure what the truth is. A few weeks ago, nobody wanted Kamala Harris to be the Democratic nominee for president. All of a sudden, her role in the destruction of the southern border is being redefined. She's parading herself as a law and order candidate despite her history as a prosecutor and attorney general. What little we know about her politics is extremely liberal, despite the law and order facade. It's a fascinating turn of events for those who have some sway left in their voting plans. Her choice of a vice president may also have influence. Odds are it'll be a white guy, you know, for inclusion and diversity. Seems fair. Unless she chooses her husband. That would throw a monkey wrench into the chain of command, wouldn't it? Is he the vice president? Is he the first gentleman? Why do we need two kitchen crews? Well, recent polling showed us that most Americans wanted a different choice other than Biden or Trump. Now the choice seems like it will be Trump or Harris. For many, it's still the choice of two evils. Just because it's Harris instead of Biden doesn't make the agenda any different or change the people behind the scenes. Anyone who would be voting for Trump probably won't change their mind to vote for Harris. But the media will try their best to bring you around. Just witnessing the way the coverage of Joe and Kamala has changed so rapidly is a sure sign of who's in line and who isn't. You're free to support any candidate you wish, but it's not the job of the media to support any candidate they wish. It's clear that they're following some guidance that's coming from somewhere. That's why I started this program more than two years ago. To help you recognize what I see in the way the media has been influenced and how the media tried to influence us. I'm very disappointed in the state of our media. I see stories every day that are meant to influence you against Donald Trump. Until the now infamous debate, there wasn't a sad story about Joe to be found. Everyone, including the media and the vice president, told us he was sharp as a tack. America saw for themselves why the president wasn't likely to answer questions from the press. We saw why he was rarely taking opportunities to do so. Now that he's out of the way, the press praises his patriotism and quickly pivots to Harris like a choreographed water ballet. Unfortunately, Joe was so far underwater that they couldn't see any way to get him back to the surface. That's when the party that's so dedicated to democracy went ahead and sidestepped the entire democratic process and forced Joe out of the race. In his place, they put their only choice, Kamala Harris. She was once described as the most progressive senator. Do the Democrats think she can win? I'm not sure they do. But they painted themselves into a corner with doctrine. And we all know you don't want to step on fresh doctrine. That stuff will stick to your work boots forever. If you dare replace a so-called black woman with anyone other than another black woman, you've violated every rule in the Democratic book. Even though Kamala assumes the identity loosely. I encourage you to consider Vice President Harris for President of the United States by determining what's important to you and then finding out what her actions have shown. Just like I would hope you do for Donald Trump. When you do so, you take away the power of the media to make your decisions for you. You don't have to consider the opinions of Joy Reed or Sean Hannity or any of the other opinion people on the news. And yes, I realize the irony that I'm being one of those people right now, but I'm not trying to change your mind. I am encouraging you to use it.

Let's Go Back

SPEAKER_02 8:42

Let's go back through the listening tube for this week in history.

SPEAKER_00 8:51

This week in 1492, the Jews are expelled from Spain when the Alhambra Decree takes effect. The Jews have been persecuted for thousands of years, and they are again right here in America. This week in 1703, in a very early example of political lawfare, Daniel Defoe is placed in a pillory for the crime of seditious libel after publishing a politically satirical pamphlet. In case you don't remember, a pillory is the device that isolates your hands and head, allowing citizens to pelt you with garbage and other debris. Not only is he subject to three days in the pillary, but he's also put in prison until he pays the fine, which in today's dollars would be about seventy-five thousand dollars. The goal of the government was to discredit him, put him where he couldn't have any influence, and make him go broke. Instead, Defoe is, as the story goes, pelted with flowers. His release was also brokered by the first Earl of Oxford if he agreed to be a spy. It is said that no man in England but Defoe ever stood in the pillory and later rose to eminence among his fellow men. If any of this sounds familiar, remember that those who forget history are destined to repeat it. By the way, if the name Daniel Defoe rings a bell, it might be because he's the guy who wrote Robinson Crusoe, which, according to Wikipedia, is second only to the Bible for the number of languages into which it has been translated. This week in 1937, the Marijuana Tax Act is passed in America, the effect of which is to render marijuana and all its byproducts illegal. One of the men who backed the law was William Randolph Hearst. He had a vast interest in timber to supply his newspapers with substrate. The use of hemp to create many of the same materials was a threat. Even then, the media had more influence than we thought. There was more going on behind the scenes than you and I would have noticed. This week in 1941, under instructions from Adolf Hitler, Nazi official Hermann Goering orders SS General Reinhard Heydrich to submit to me as soon as possible a general plan of the administrative material and financial measures necessary for carrying out the desired final solution of the Jewish question. The Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, spoke before a joint session of Congress this week in the United States. Many Democrats didn't attend. The president of the Senate, Vice President Harris, was also a no-show. Representative Taib held a placard in the gallery that said, war criminal. Outside, leftists and progressives and misguided people painted pro Hamas graffiti on national monuments and burned American flags. Sure, there were arrests. Most were immediately released. As I've said on this program before, the executive branch decides which laws are enforced, especially in the nation's capital. This week in 1958, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signs into law the National Aeronautics and Space Act, which creates the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I'm working on getting an interview with some people from NASA. Stay tuned for that. This week in 1981, MTV begins broadcasting in the United States and airs its first video, The Video Killed the Radio Star by the Buggles. A few months later, I would enter broadcasting school. Suddenly, the whole dynamic of playing other people's music for the enjoyment of other people changed dramatically. But since my broadcasting school was the Defense Information School at Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana, it didn't matter what the outside world was doing. I had a mission. By the time I got out of the Air Force, it was clear to see the video revolution was not, in fact, going to kill the radio star. People still love radio, and millions more of us listen to radio than watch MTV. If anything helped kill the radio star, it's iHeart Radio and the spread of syndicated programming that put the local DJ out of work. Thousands of journalists have lost jobs in the past few years and almost as many personalities at local radio stations. We need to support local radio. I'm talking about the kind of radio that plays your favorite music, but will also announce that you lost your dog. That may sound trivial, but it's a much better service than trying to win money for texting a nationwide number. One station can keep you aware of local much better than the other. This week in 2003, in Mexico, the last old style Volkswagen Beetle rolls off the assembly line. I don't normally mention brand names on the program, but the Volkswagen Beetle is certainly one of the most successful cars in history. I had one when I lived in Guam. Bought it from an Air Force staff sergeant named Dave. Good guy. We also had motorcycles, and he was one of the first guys to show me around the island. This Volkswagen Beetle was made in 1968. It was an automatic stick shift, which is something I had never seen before, nor since. There was no clutch pedal, but you still had to shift gears. The shifter was on the floor, and when you pressed down on it, that engaged the clutch. You just took your foot off the gas, shifted, and put your foot back on the gas. Revolutionary. It was painted primer red with a brush. It had two by fours for bumpers. It had a kick-ass cassette deck in it. Along the way, I had to break the driver's side wing window because I locked the keys in it, and the passenger seat became detached from the floor to the point where I could see the road go by underneath. I was still able to get girls in it, though. All the way down to Taragi Beach. I gave that car away the day I left Guam to a woman. I woke up at her house and said, Hey, if you give me a ride back to the base, you can have my car. I'll sign it over to you right now.

SPEAKER_01 17:34

The listening tube will return at the speed of sound.

Mark Sutton

SPEAKER_01 17:41

Contact the listening tube by calling 570-601-1101 or email thelistening tube at outlook.com.

SPEAKER_00 17:53

My guest this week is a man who discovered his political party forgot about him and men in general. He's determined to turn that around and wrote a book about how to do it. He's Mark Sutton, and Mark's been in politics for a long time. He dug down deep into his party's platform and was surprised by what he didn't find. So was I, and that's why I wanted to talk to him.

SPEAKER_04 18:26

Where do you hail from, Mark? I am coming to you from San Francisco, California.

SPEAKER_00 18:30

San Francisco. Been there a couple of times. Is the talk of its demise premature? There have been some challenges here.

SPEAKER_04 18:39

Absolutely. There are challenges with some homelessness and drug use in certain neighborhoods in particular. Other neighborhoods, like where I live, it is generally much safer. The other problem we've had here is with retail theft and car break-ins. There was a law passed a few years ago that made it harder to prosecute those types of crimes. And since that happened, my own car has been broken into twice since that law passed. If you go into a drugstore in San Francisco, I don't know if it's like this where you live. When you walk into a drugstore, at least half the store is now in a locked cabinet. And you have to press a button and wait for someone to get deodorant or toothpaste or whatever product, because otherwise those items are getting stolen. And so that's an issue. So it's a lot of these low-level crimes definitely have been a problem, particularly in certain neighborhoods. But there's still parts of the city that are great and beautiful. You know, it's a mix like a lot of places.

SPEAKER_00 19:34

So now you are on a mission to get more men to join the Democratic Party. Is that correct?

SPEAKER_04 19:42

Well, I guess my mission is more to get the Democratic Party to be more amiable to men. It's more the other way around. I want the party to change how it's talking about men's issues and how it appeals to men. So I'm I'm placing the burden on the party apparatus, not on the people.

SPEAKER_00 19:58

Well, that seems to make sense. Now, have men been leaving the Democratic Party, or did they just not join in the first place? How did we get to the point that you felt you needed to take action?

SPEAKER_04 20:10

The moment I had the record scratch moment for me was in 2020. And uh I was looking at the 2020 Democratic Party platform. I was waiting for that document to come out. Oh, great, I wonder what they're gonna say about men, because I have a particular interest in the well-being of boys and men. That's one of my passions. And so when I got the document, I looked at it, I'm reading through it, I said it doesn't have anything in here for men and boys at all. So I actually conducted a word search, you know, you know, control F and you do all the men and boys and all the women and girls. And so the words men and boys total only appear 10 times in the document, whereas the word women and girls appear 73 times. And of the 10 times when the words men or boys appear, it's always just in a boys and girls or men and women statement. So there is there's no direct connection to a men and boys issue at all. And so that was a moment I just went, oh my gosh, this party is just specifically not talking to men and boys at all. And I want to make one thing clear too. I support everyone, I support our women and girls, and so there's a lot of direct messaging to women and girls in the party platform, and that's fantastic, that's great. And I I think sometimes we have this either-or thing, and I for me it's yes and like we can support multiple groups of people, we can support everyone at the same time in meaningful ways, and we don't need to say choose this group over that group. It's yes and so I want to make that very clear too.

SPEAKER_00 21:36

Sure, and I get that, but it feels to me like you're an advocate for men. And I have to ask what types of issues require men to have an advocate? Don't men already rule the world?

SPEAKER_04 21:50

That is a common thought. Uh there are a lot of issues, and so let me just bring a few up and let me talk talk to you about that misconception. So for instance, let's Life expectancy. I think that's one of the biggest issues that rarely gets talked about. Right now in the United States, women live 5.9 years longer than men on average. So women get to live six years longer. And there's that's never brought up as just, oh, you know, men die sooner, it's their own fault or you know, it's their own problem. But it's really is a lot of it is, you know, it's perhaps genetic. Men die earlier of 14 of the 15 leading causes of death. So shouldn't we be studying more about what's going on with men and why they're dying early? In fact, even Harvard, uh Harvard University, through their magazine, they released a report. I, you know, I had already written about this age discrepancy, and then they released a big report about it and said, hey, we don't know why men are dying so much earlier. This is this is really uh scary. We need to study this more. The leaders of the Democratic Party have been radio silent on the issue. Don't even mention it, never even talk about it.

SPEAKER_00 22:53

Well, I think the general feeling is that men die earlier than their wives because they want to.

SPEAKER_04 23:03

I mean, you know, that that's a that's a something I've heard before too.

SPEAKER_00 23:10

But um uh okay, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. You you there was that just the first issue that you wanted to address?

SPEAKER_04 23:19

I mean, that's one of many. You know, there's something called what have been labeled the deaths of despair. So it's kind of a related issue, but men have been dying of suicide, overdose, and uh alcoholic liver disease at much higher rates. In fact, in 2022, there were 130,000 men who died of these so-called deaths of despair. That's a huge number. That's a tragedy. Think every one of those people that's an entire family who lost someone too early, who lost someone young, who's got a hole in their heart. And again, it's not focused on as a men's issue. Now, the Biden administration has done a little bit to try to relieve the opioid epidemic. And it's good that they're doing something, but you know, it's never understood, you know, why is it that 75% of the unsheltered homeless are male? Even the National Homeless Coalition says that's a gender issue that focuses on men. But you know, the Democratic Party never has a set of gender issues focused on men. They just choose not to. And I think in 2024 it's time to change that. Now, you did mention people say, oh, well, men rule the world or it's a man's world, or things like that. I hear phrases like that a lot. It is true that, you know, absolutely every single president has been a man, and you know, the majority of people in Congress and Fortune 500 CEOs are male. And that is a legitimate issue that women have. Like I say, I support women and girls on their issues. And if they say, hey, we don't have enough people in leadership, I say, yeah, let's try to let's work on that. That's great. I support you on your issue. Do you support me on mine? I think it's just uh it's a balance. I guess what I'm looking for is a balance in the approach to these issues.

SPEAKER_00 24:53

You didn't certainly didn't see one then in the in the 2020 agenda for the the Democratic Party, and that's what got you on this mission in the first place.

SPEAKER_04 25:03

Yeah, that that was a moment that that really sparked it. Then I that led me to do some research on gender voting, uh excuse me, voting by gender going back to the 70s. And so it turns out in 1972, 1976, men and women voted more or less equally for president. Uh voted for Nixon in 72, and then Watergate happened, and people weren't happy with that. Then they voted for Carter in 76. Then what happened? There was a huge bifurcation that happened with Ronald Reagan starting in 1980, where women went more Democrat and men went more conservative. And that split has lasted ever since then, and it's only widened. And it's almost getting to the point where the Democrats are becoming the women's party and the Republican are you know becoming the men's party. And I don't think that's healthy. I think it should be more balanced in both parties.

SPEAKER_00 25:51

Well, now our listeners can't uh see you, but I can, and you look like a man to me. I I only I only point that out because there seems to be more of a fluidity on the issue of gender with liberals than conservatives. Like, for example, Justice Katanji Brown wouldn't define a woman in her confirmation hearings. Now, given that, how much support among men do you think the Democratic Party can muster with that type of attitude toward gender?

SPEAKER_04 26:28

That that's a very good question. You know, the whole the whole question of how is gender defined? You know, maybe 30 years ago, I thought we had it a little more clear where we just had something that was called biological sex. That's your DNA. That's immutable. You're born a certain way. We look we measure that, we define it male, female. There are a very, very, very, very, very small number of people, you know, who are non-binary. But then I would also say people can express themselves however they want to. You can wear whatever clothes you want to, that's your choice, as something called, and we used to call that gender expression. Now they shortened it to just the word gender, and they're trying to say now gender is gender expression. Part of it is just a word issue, but I am surprised by that confusion. Again, my it's not really the focus of what I do. I have to look at that because I am looking at male and female, I'm looking at gender issues. So, of course, that's still within the realm. It's not really my specialty, it's not my focus. But I do agree with you that I think that lack of just clarity of understanding what the sexes are turns some people off. I agree with that.

SPEAKER_00 27:32

So you you've indicated that the political parties, the Democratic-Republican parties, have split almost by gender. Did you find a cause for that split? I mean, was it Ronald Reagan's personality? What caused the split and why does it still exist today?

SPEAKER_04 27:49

Yeah. Well, a big part of it is probably, you know, uh the right to choose. Probably there are more women who prefer that. And when I say it's split, it's not split like you know 80% to 20%. Um we're looking at, you know, the highest Democrats have done with women is plus 16% in election, and the highest Republicans have done with men is about plus 28, which is pretty high, actually. And so that that's the level that we're talking about. But that's a good question. Exactly why did that happen? I think it was gradual, but uh Democrats that say we champion the right to choose and women's rights, and they focus more on that. I think that is a big part of it.

SPEAKER_00 28:27

I know you've obviously studied this in depth, probably from a number of different angles. So, do you see variations in party registration based on demographics other than gender? Do you like age groups or race or LGBTQ2S or have you have you taken a look at how all that breaks down?

SPEAKER_04 28:48

Yeah. So one thing I do in my book, How Democrats Can Win Back Mand is the name of the book. Um, I look, I do the breakdown by race and gender, for instance, pr you know, which party the person voted for in the last election. And here's the pattern you see. So, for instance, African Americans tend to vote more democratic, majority. But within the African American, within the black community, there's a about a 10% gap where women are still voting 10% more Democrat than men. And you see the same thing in the Latino community, you see the same thing among white voters. So you see the same thing again in all these groups, there's this gender gap persists. Now, within each race, the races also have different patterns with themselves. So both are factors. Gender is a factor and race is a factor when you look at the voting patterns.

SPEAKER_00 29:34

It's very interesting, but it seems to be somewhat consistent then.

SPEAKER_04 29:39

Yeah, oh, very consistent. And you know, it we see the exact same thing. Another topic, education. Women have been earning more college degrees than men since the 1980s, which people don't realize since the early 80s. And if you again do the exact same thing, you disaggregate the data by race and gender, what you see is that within each race, women are doing better than men of the same race, and then different races might have different outcomes.

SPEAKER_00 30:04

Quite often at public events you'll run across people sitting at a table with political pamphlets, you know, at the at the state fair or whatever, or even candidates walking around collecting signatures to or on a petition to get his or her name on the ballot. And I'll always stop and listen to what they have to say. But I found a question I like to ask after hearing all the promises that were being made to special interest groups. Now, it seems like politics is slicing us up into smaller and smaller fragments. So I figured I need to turn myself into a special interest group to get some attention from my representatives. Now, a Republican could say, Well, we're the party of single white men. As for Democrats, if I were to run a compilation video of the stunned looks on the faces of every Democratic politician I ever asked that question, you would think it was a series of still photographs. Now, in all fairness, libertarians and independents would probably have a hard time answering the question as well. But why is it so hard for a Democrat to answer that question?

SPEAKER_04 31:31

That's a good point. I mean, I think there is a sense that white men, I mean, most of the presidents have been white men, so it kind of goes back to that issue earlier. But I think everyone should have the right to express their needs for their own well-being and express their opinion and have the right to be heard. As you mentioned earlier, people have a lot of different opinions that we're never gonna have complete agreement on everything with everyone. But I think everyone deserves to have their voice in the mix, no matter who you are.

SPEAKER_00 32:00

And even though it seems like many of the leaders of the Democratic Party are white men, white men are still somehow left behind. Is there a cause for that?

SPEAKER_04 32:14

I think there is the feeling of, you know, as we were saying before, like you know, traditionally men have been in a lot of these leaders leadership positions. There is the desire to sort of change that, but of course, challenging because anyone who's running for a leader position, they want to win. I mean, when Gasm, when Gavin Newsom ran for governor, he wanted to win, right? Of California, and he's a white man, so it's kind of interesting. And they say, Oh, I support people of color, but then you're then but you're not, but you're still running for yourself. So it is kind of interesting how that can happen. But I I would say if you look at the leadership of the Democratic Party, I mean, it is it is uh very broad, and I do think that is a good thing. I think it's good if in general we have leadership that reflects the diversity of population, and I think it's a tricky balance. You don't want to just elect somebody because of their demographic category, but at the same time, when you just take a step back and look at everyone, I think it's good if you see a healthy mix. Yes, you want diversity, but you don't want to, you know, there's that balance of forcing it versus letting it happen naturally. And I think that's where some of the disagreements come in with some of the political parties. Some people want to sort of force that diversity, some people want to let it happen more naturally. And that's and that's a challenge for us as a society because I do think we want to make everyone feel like we're talking about before, that everyone feels like their voice is heard, like they're represented by someone.

SPEAKER_00 33:35

In hindsight, it it it almost seems to me a little bit like the uh the leaders, the white male leaders of the Democratic Party ha somehow have developed a maternal instinct to take care of everyone but themselves.

SPEAKER_04 33:51

Yes, I've heard this referred to as uh the white knight syndrome or the white knight complex, where they're gonna do everything for everyone else. So they kind of get all the glory by being the one who helps everyone, and then they kind of keep the other guys down. I've heard it described that way. So that kind of sounds like what you're referring to.

SPEAKER_00 34:09

The Democratic Party has always had a very good relationship with unions. The first time the head of the Teamsters Union was invited to speak at the Republican National Convention. Uh but then Donald Trump said the leader of the United Auto Workers Union should be fired. Is is the Democratic Party losing its grip on unions? And does it really matter? Because I mean, union workers represent only about 11 or 12 percent of the workforce, and we can't even say they all vote Democrat.

SPEAKER_04 34:42

Yeah, unions still have a lot of power. Uh, they certainly don't all vote Democrat. I think they it used to be more solidly Democrat. I don't know the numbers off the top of my head, but I believe that number is slipping. Here in San Francisco, I know the unions, like a lot of the people who are in office in San Francisco, are have a union background. So uh there are certain places, California being one of them, where the unions are still very strong.

SPEAKER_00 35:06

So is there a magic key to unlocking the minds of men to embrace the values of the Democratic Party?

SPEAKER_04 35:15

I don't think there's a magic key, but what I do think the most important thing for the party to do is first to just address their issues and address them directly. Because the Democratic Party just never mentions men. It may might mention subgroups of men. Maybe, you know, there occasionally there is an effort, like there's a commission set up on the status of black men in Congress. And so, you know, that's good because black men do have a lot of challenging outcomes on it. It's great that we're supporting them, but again, that's a small, it's a small percentage of the overall population. You know, for instance, healthcare coverage, men are less likely to have health care coverage than women. And one of the things that a lot of Democrats want is some sort of form, some form of universal coverage. That would help men, because men are the ones who are most likely to not be covered. Men are the ones dying 5.9 years earlier. So, you know, they could just own that as something that's helping men. Instead, they still support the issue, but they don't frame it in a way that is making sense.

SPEAKER_00 36:14

Did the erosion of the family unit make it necessary to pay more attention to women in households with children? And that may have led to the abandonment of men because when the family unit broke up, more often than not, the woman is left with the children. And if that man is is a deadbeat dad or whatever the case may be, he maybe he can't afford to pay child support. I'm I'm not I'm not saying he's a a deadbeat, but that's the phrase that's commonly used.

unknown 36:51

Right.

SPEAKER_00 36:51

But the but that it it created a need for women uh that was greater than the need for men, or so it appeared at the time, because they had the women to attend or the uh the children to attend to as well. So because of all that attention going to the to the women, did that cause the men to be abandoned? Because certainly it does look like it was the Democratic Party that paid most attention to those those women left behind by their husbands.

SPEAKER_04 37:22

That's a that's a very good point. And you know, I think one thing that could be done is to try to really encourage fatherhood involvement and not rely on father simply as a paycheck. So you did mention how oftentimes they split, and maybe for some reason the father is unable to pay. Might be you know, it might be just honest to good, has got laid off, can't find a job, or has making a job, is not making enough money to support himself and still be able to make payments. I mean, we don't know. Every every situation is a little bit different. But I think if we could encourage healthy fatherhood, understand, I mean, again, the data speaks for itself, but I think we want to just you know acknowledge that that's a good thing for everyone. And for some reason, I find the Democrats, even though back then, not that long ago, President Obama was was pretty happy saying that and was very forward to that while he was running. Now you don't hear that sort of talk as much, how important fathers are. And I I wish we would hear that more from the Democrats.

SPEAKER_00 38:16

So have you discovered any specific steps or recommended any specific steps to who whoever you know in the Democratic Party to address this issue of uh men in the party?

SPEAKER_04 38:31

Yeah, so I in my book I have a series of uh seven goals I think they should shoot for. And part, you know, so the first step is just setting those goals and saying, okay, acknowledging, hey, we're losing among men, if we can even get to 50-50 in the national election and in the swing states among men, yeah, the Democrats will win all those races. And on the other hand, if they do the opposite, if they kind of continue to ignore men and men start going the other way, you might have heard that young men are now drifting away from the left. The political left used to be where most young men sort of saw their thing. So they got to shoot for 50% at least. They got to set those goals, they got to support healthy fatherhood. So there are a bunch of these things that they can do. They got to address the issues, as I mentioned, directly in the party platform. They need to set up commissions on the status of men, wherever there's a commission on the status of women and girls. Here in California, we have a state commission on the status of women and girls funded to the tune of $9 million a year. In San Francisco, where I live, there is a department on the status of women and girls that's funded $13 million a year. Now, I think it's great that we're supporting our women and girls in San Francisco. Okay, that's great. But we need to do the same thing for our men and boys because a lot of those, you know, commissions were founded 30, 40 years ago, and the world was a different place that's two generations ago. And, you know, things have changed since then, and now we see that it's men and boys who are struggling in a number of areas, as we've already discussed. I have heard, you know, a leader from one of the Democratic State parties said, Oh, we're the party that supports everyone who's not straight, white, and male. And I thought, why don't you just say we support everyone regardless of your identity? One-third of the voters are, you know, white male. So I think they need to address everything. So those are some of the things that I suggest to as a uh armchair strategist, lifelong Democrat, somebody I c I call myself an engaged voter. I've you know been involved with campaigns as a volunteer and various democratic groups and things like that.

SPEAKER_00 40:35

California recently became the only state in the union that prohibits teachers and school personnel from telling parents about children who want to alter their gender or go by different pronouns or however far they want to go with that. Does that present a trust issue for the Democrats?

SPEAKER_04 40:58

Yeah, that's a very important issue, and that is a recent one. That is, I just want to preface this by saying this is a little outside of my scope of specialty. So it's a gender issue. I focus more on like male well-being. So this isn't totally my wheelhouse. I'm aware of the law that you talked about because I do live here in California, so but I don't have any kids in the school system right now. There is something that I think needs to be looked at just to make sure that parents feel comfortable with any health issue that their student has, you know, at school. Like if a student was at school and broke their leg, the school would call. And then I've heard the other thing is like, oh, if student says they come out as you know not straight, then maybe their parents will get mad at them. It's not really, you know, it's different. Anyway, it is a tricky issue. I I understand that that's but again, that's not exactly my particular focus.

SPEAKER_00 41:51

Okay, well, I'll move on then. Now I have to address the donkey in the room. What effect will President Biden's exit from the race have on democratic men if they nominate a woman?

SPEAKER_04 42:08

Most democratic men, including myself, absolutely 100% will support uh a female candidate who's, you know, who's a good candidate who they like. I look at ideas and policies more than the person more than the demographics of the person. And I know people say, oh, people vote on if the person is whatever race, whatever gender, things like that. I look at the policies. If somebody has policies that I like, I will vote for them. I don't care what their personal identity is. If somebody has policies I don't like, I'm not going to vote for them. So I hope that most Democrats feel the same way. So I would absolutely for sure vote for a woman. I would just advise the Democrats if you know if there is a female candidate, there's going to be a lot of support, and that's great from female voters. I would just say don't ignore everyone else because what we've seen in the past is, you know, there's just a presumption that everyone is going to vote based on identity. I think a lot of people are based on ideals and not on identity.

SPEAKER_00 43:10

I'm not sure I have that much faith and confidence in in many of us. I think there are a lot of identity politics out there and uh those who who vote in line with those identity politics. But we'll see. President Biden certainly threw a monkey wrench in the whole operation yesterday. And were you surprised, disappointed?

SPEAKER_04 43:32

Uh how did how did it strike you? Boy, this year is not never a dull moment in this campaign, huh? Just like like the hits just keep on coming. I I was not super shocked. After that first debate performance, a lot of people were very unhappy with it, and it seemed like the drumbeat was getting louder and louder and louder. And it seemed like he had to do it very soon. It seemed like right after the Republican convention, if he were going to do it, would be the time, and that's what happened.

SPEAKER_00 43:57

Is there anything I didn't ask you about that you'd like to say?

SPEAKER_04 44:01

I would just say one thing about one thing about the very unfortunate assassination attempt that happened last week. I just think it's sad that we're seeing these types of shootings. And it's very sad. I've seen several several good articles came out on that about how we need to focus on the well-being of our boys and young men because I think there's other issues. There's you know, more generalized mental illness, there's the issue of keeping guns safe, gun control, or however you want to look at that. But I think, you know, at the end of the day, this was a young man who somehow felt lost, alienated, alone, lonely, something like that. There was something going on with him. I think it's very sad. And I think uh if we want to prevent any more of these types of incidents, the best thing to do is support our young men and boys and to try to get them to the point so they'd never want to do this again.

SPEAKER_00 44:55

Mark Sutton's book is called How Democrats Can Win Back Men. Learn more at mark-sutton.com. I really enjoyed my conversation with Mark, and I hope you did too. Thanks to Mark Sutton for spending his time with us. I'm your host, Bob Woodley, for Thou an Infinitem.