Progressive Men Have a Moral Obligation to Bench 225 lbs

In politics, the best ideas do not always win. Optics matter. Insofar as progressives talk about running “safe white boys,” I believe that physical strength is a metric that should be considered. The Left needs stronger candidates. Literally, the Left needs stronger candidates.

I. Young men are leaving the Left. Why?

Young men are shifting away from the Left, or, more accurately, young women are moving further left while young men’s political views remain stable. The net result is that the Left is losing appeal among younger voters. This trend is especially evident in the USA, illustrated by a rise of Barstool conservative influencers and Trump’s recent presidential victory. Its roots are overdetermined, but I suspect—and argue—that a significant portion is because the Left is associated with weakness, whereas the right is associated with strength.

This suspicion is fueled, in part, by my internet childhood, which (as many might relate with) was littered with videos of Ben Shapiro destroying Liberals and compilations of Feminists getting “pwned.” Beyond my experience, consider some more recent pieces that bolster the point.

KTRH Local Houston and Texas Radio: Why The Left Is Trying To Destroy Masculinity?

NPR: With 'Pussyhats,' Liberals Get Their Own Version Of The Red Trucker Hat

Newsweek: The Left Is Paying a High Price for Getting Men Wrong

Ultimately, I believe there is a perception of leftism that associates progressive values with weakness, bleeding hearts, and femininity, which, unfortunately, turns young men away.

Further, consider the “masculinity crisis.” Young men, especially working-class young men, continue to suffer higher suicide, addiction, and homelessness rates, while doing worse with employment and educational attainment. These trends are troubling and demand redress. However, the Left—particularly the Democrats—have made it clear through years of identity politics and antagonism that young white men are not especially welcome under their big tent. It is no surprise that these voters turned rightward for an answer.

II. How can the Left solve this problem?

Progressive policies have been hindered by myriad mistakes. Many of these mistakes have been addressed and examined ad nauseam. One low-hanging fruit is shifting towards a more inclusive message that welcomes disenfranchised white men. However, here at Hmms, we look for the fruit buried in leaves, the ripest, sweetest morsels that you really need to reach for.

My argument is about one particular component of optics: muscles. More left-wing candidates, influencers, and pundits should prioritize building a barrel chest, a tight waist, and chiselled abs.

III. Why is this worthwhile?

Building an aesthetic physique is difficult. It requires time and effort. This time and effort trade off with the time one could spend writing thinkpieces, pontificating, or policymaking. This time tradeoff is worth the while for a few reasons:

1. Health is good

Exercise is astonishingly good for you. Even a small amount, done consistently, can increase your lifespan, boost your mood, and make you smarter. This means more years of life to write thinkpieces, happier pontificating, and smarter policymaking.

Humans did not evolve to sit around all day; so, whether it be hitting the gym, rock climbing, or sport—I promise you, a commitment to exercise is worth your time.

2. Strength is Status

Stronger men are perceived as better leaders. In a 2016 Berkeley study, “The role of physical formidability in human social status allocation,” Lukaszewski et al. find that visibly stronger men are perceived as better leaders. Across cultures, strength is consistently correlated with higher social status. Their research suggests that this correlation occurs because people directly associate muscle mass with prestige, effective leadership, and management ability.

Their research additionally examines why victorious presidents are usually tall. Similar to strength, height is an important characteristic in politics because it has a positive signalling effect on voters.

Moreover, across time and region, strongmen politicians have employed propaganda to project an image of grandeur: they are bigger, taller, stronger, and thus, more capable.

See: Putin riding a horse, Stalin steering a ship, and Trump cosplaying Rocky.

3. Strength Signals Virtue

Visible physical fitness is a status sign. Among gym-goers, benching 225 lbs is a well-respected accomplishment. If you can bench two plates, you likely worked hard to get there. For the Barstool Conservatives, for the Joe Rogans, the RFK Jrs, the Andrew Tates, and the scores of young men who look to the gym for recreation, productivity, and purpose, strength is currency for respect.

In the animal kingdom, strength matters. When all else falls apart, degrees, test scores, and official qualifications do not. In a world where expertise is mistrusted, where crisis is omnipresent, might makes right. We should value highly universal accomplishments in prospective leaders because, unlike other accomplishments, they are incredibly easy to understand. The average person does not understand the difficulty of amassing accomplishments in research or policy. Conversely, the average person does understand that lifting heavy things requires impressive physical feats. Most young men are not academics—if the Left wants to win, they need to meet young men on their turf, for a change.

4. Strength Demands Respect

People—bullies—on either end of the political spectrum are too willing to act disrespectfully. Increasingly, this disrespect is far removed from consequence. Bullies often bite hardest with attacks on physical appearance. However, these attacks are easily defanged when the target is powerful. Picking on weakness is a cowardly yet effective tactic. When the target is strong, the attack lands awkwardly.

Additionally, strength has a chilling effect on disrespect. Imagine a politician who makes fun of their opponent during a debate. That politician is likely to successfully and continuously humiliate their opponent if the opponent has no recourse. However, the same cowards who would attack someone's physical appearance or family would likely be deterred if their opponent were a hulking behemoth who could walk over and ruffle their feathers, so to speak.

Trump is a slob. Unfortunately, all the other republican candidates were slobs as well. So, Trump could easily make fun of Chris Christie's weight, Lindsay Graham’s intellect, and Marco Rubio’s height. Intuitively, if a LeBron James or Dwayne “the rock” Johnson were on the debate stage, Trump's bullying would have him appear more of a twittering birdie than an attack dog.

IV. Concluding Remarks

I think progressive policies are generally good, and certainly better than the policies of most current conservative administrations. Even if you dislike progressive policies, a stronger, more competitive progressive party puts good pressure on conservative parties to moderate. Unfortunately, the Left is politically unpopular. Young men have become increasingly disenfranchised, and the Left has disavowed masculinity. Young men have left the Left. If progressives want to signal effective leadership, revamp their image, and gain some respect, they should invest time in increasing their bench.

V. Problems in this essay:

1. I acknowledge that the analysis and sources in this essay were unfortunately male-centric.

2. I conflate left, progressive, and Democrat improperly. The more precise language might have been “non-rightists,” but that felt somewhat inhuman to me.

3. Throughout the essay, I presume “the Left” is a good thing that should be empowered. This is partially because I identify more with the Left; however, I still think that there is a fruitful debate to be had about the benefits of liberalism vs conservatism. Overall, even if you do not identify with the Left, having stronger political parties is a good thing for all groups—a non-competitive right wing party might become complacent and lazy, which is bad for everybody.