http://www.weeklystandard.com/reactionary-manliness/article/2002670Reactionary Manliness
Donald Trump's tough-guy act.JUN 13, 2016 | By AARON MACLEAN
His vast fortune, the equally vast array of women with whom he has slept, the sufficiency of the relevant equipment for such exertions, how other men are afraid of him, or are brought to tears because of him, or will bend to his will in their dealings with him: Donald Trump seems very concerned that we know he’s a very manly man.
There are indications that some, even many, Americans are persuaded of Trump's manliness. On the assumption that men prefer to be led by a real man, there is his substantial lead among male voters in polls that match him against Hillary Clinton—and though that lead is currently in the neighborhood of what Romney enjoyed over Obama, there are some who argue plausibly that this election will involve a gender gap of historic proportions. Men may want to be him, but according to the polls, women sure don't love him.
And it's not just the polls. People whose political judgment I respect have made the case (albeit earlier in the electoral season) that, say what you will, at least there is some virility to Trump: He says what he thinks, he doesn't back down, he drives a hard bargain—all qualities lacking in our neutered political class.
So is it right to say that Trump is manly? Well, yes, but only to the extent that it is right to say Mussolini was patriotic. Trump's brand of manliness is a reactionary manliness—or maybe it would be more accurate to say that his manly appeal can be chalked up to the disgust many Americans have at the success of the left's assault on manliness.
As with Hugh Hefner in the face of ascendant feminism, or hip-hop stars after the decline of the African-American family, the appeal of a man as transparently ridiculous as Trump is driven by the exasperation of one part of American society that another dominant segment of that society has decided manliness of any kind is retrograde. That dominant segment will be voting for Hillary Clinton in November—and who better to inform the American man that his day is done than scowling, joyless Hillary? And what more natural response to her ascendance than a boastful, deeply insecure bully, who at least is willing to say the things that "establishment" figures won't—in part because he is willing to say anything?
There is a parallel here to Trump's brand of nationalism. Just as there is such a thing as responsible manliness—brave, even bold when circumstances demand; cool under pressure; gentle with the weak but fearsome to wrongdoers—so there is such a thing as responsible American patriotism. Pride in a nation as exceptional as ours is something to be taught, nurtured, and cherished, and it can be generous because it is rooted in real confidence. But the left—President Obama is an excellent example of this—is suspicious of any sort of pride in a nation, because it is suspicious of the very idea of nations. This increasingly powerful suspicion, and its effects, inspire the kind of chauvinistic nationalist reaction harnessed by Trump.
But just as this kind of nationalism is, at its core, fearful, so is Trump's manliness. A certain kind of feminist has long argued, not without a kernel of justice, that "masculinity" (as they would prefer it) is driven by fear—and man, do they have a useful exhibit in Donald J. Trump! During college he dragged things out with student deferments, and even though an earlier draft physical had found him fit for duty, he was saved shortly after graduation when a new physical declared that he had bone spurs in his foot. Or feet: It doesn't seem to be quite clear, and the records have been destroyed. A generous assessment would be that this was just selfishness or laziness, but there's no good reason to think cowardice didn't also play a role. As it happens, his draft number would have kept him out of service anyway, but that happened later. It is no accident that he is so obsequious in his pandering to veterans and so quick to swing (verbally, of course) at actual heroes, like John McCain, who question him.
Not so up for fighting the Communists in Vietnam, but very ready today to mock the physically disabled—as in November, when Trump, playing to an appreciative audience, mimicked the stunted arm motion of Serge Kovaleski, a reporter who suffers from arthrogryposis, a chronic condition that causes that kind of thing. Very ready to claim that women who question him, like Megyn Kelly, are probably menstruating. Very ready to call a reporter who asked reasonable questions about the multimonth disappearance of money Trump had claimed to raise for veterans a "sleaze," as he did this past week to ABC's Tom Llamas. The lashing out often has a tactical payoff—the conversation turns to whether or not Llamas is a sleaze, and not to the likelihood Trump would have turned over the cash had reporters not hounded him.
And that's just the reporters! Trump's political opponents each get branded with a schoolyard taunt, and it has been well observed that a sure guide to the man's own insecurities can be found in the insults he dishes out off-the-cuff. If you find yourself in a confrontation with Trump, know that if you go after his intelligence, success, or weight, you will be sure to hit a nerve.
Just as a total absence of toughness was once considered deplorable in an American man, so the overcompensation that is Trump's brand of manliness was also looked down upon. Any parent who casts a vote for him needs to consider what kind of behavior they are endorsing for their sons.
And for their country. I'm not one to argue, as some have, that the Trump phenomenon approaches full-dress fascism, but it is surely no accident the fascists also held in honor a kind of reactionary manliness. Evidence of this abounds, but we can satisfy ourselves by considering the Futurist manifesto of Filippo Marinetti, the early leader of a school of art closely aligned with the rise of fascism. Marinetti called for "the love of danger, the habit of energy and fearlessness . . . courage, audacity, and revolt . . . the punch and the slap . . . militarism, patriotism, . . . and scorn for woman."
There is a lot of Trump in that. Marx, comparing the unrest of 1848 to the French Revolution, noted that history indeed repeats itself, "the first time as tragedy, the second as farce." European fascism of the '30s was a response to the failure of liberalism and the pain of the Great Depression; we now have the populism of Trump, a response to Barack Obama and the 2008 financial crisis. He is indeed farcical—but so are those neutered politicians who find themselves intimidated by such a pathetic excuse for a man.
