What do JD Vance and Andrew Tate have in common? According to many on the political Left, quite a lot.
Vance is, of course, the Vice President of the United States, having risen to this position from the humble origins described in his 2016 book, Hillbilly Elegy, since adapted into a Netflix movie. Tate is an internet-famous influencer of the so-called “Manosphere”, a former champion kickboxer and son of a chess master. Until his recent release, Tate was under house arrest in Romania, awaiting trial on multiple charges including human trafficking and forming an organised crime group to sexually exploit women.
So far, the similarities between the men are not apparent. However, both men have repeatedly been condemned by the Left as sexist and toxic.
Unfortunately, it is rare to find any male public figure to the right of centre who has not been labelled this way by legacy media, celebrities, and left-wing politicians alike. In the case of Vance and Tate however, who have radically different outlooks and views, the phenomenon is particularly striking.
Let’s examine the various accusations against JD Vance. A few weeks ago, Marko Elez (25), a member of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, resigned from his position after old tweets of his resurfaced, making derogatory statements about various minorities. Vance stated in response to his resignation, “I obviously disagree with some of Elez’s posts, but I don’t think stupid social media activity should ruin a kid’s life”. This statement was roundly criticised by the Left as supportive of racism. Vance has been further been attacked for suggesting that many women who “spend 90 hours a week working in a cubicle at McKinsey instead of starting a family and having children” do not find fulfilment, because such is a “path to misery”. In the eyes of the Left, only a raging misogynist would dare suggest that a woman locking herself in a box with a desktop computer for company for most of her life might feel less satisfaction than a woman bringing new life into the world and nurturing her children into upstanding and virtuous citizens. It should be noted by all under the impression that Vance is a racist or sexist that his wife is an Indian American and the daughter of two immigrants, as well as a successful lawyer in her own right.
In fact, none of the accusations against Vance hold much ground. It is, in truth, because of his non-extremist views and policies that Vance has become a role model for many young men. His brand of masculinity is characterised by a calm confidence, authenticity, and a willingness to speak plainly even in pressurised situations. Vance shows that if a man can cultivate himself so that he can speak precisely and forcefully, respect women but not bow to them as superior beings, and hold himself with dignity, no-one acting in good faith will ever question his masculinity.
Tate is a very different case. While he too is considered “of the political Right”, he has little otherwise in common with Vance. Tate has been accused of rape and human trafficking, and has proudly admitted to sexual depravity and pimping on past occasions. Tate has expressed interest in running for UK Prime Minister in the past, and in an interview with conservative YouTuber Benny Johnson, he expressed disgust at the presence of other cultures mixing in the UK, stating that “if you don’t speak English, you shouldn’t be here”.
Tate’s views of women are about as dissimilar from Vance’s as possible. He has run a pornographic webcam business which he himself admitted to being a scam. He ran a course offering “PHDs”, or “Pimping Hoes Degrees”, and has spoken about his method of seducing women so that they would submit to his webcam business. Nevertheless, Tate’s influence on young men is undeniable.
He has millions of followers on various platforms worldwide, and according to a survey taken in 2023, of UK men aged 18 to 29, 27% have a favourable opinion of him and another 8% who know of him are neutral. Tate’s brand of ‘hyper-masculinity’, combined with his apparent success in business, is appealing in many ways to young men. Almost the entirety of Tate’s branding is about how men are pushed aside and resented in the modern world. While there is more than a grain of truth in this, Tate’s solution is not for men to take on their proper roles of faithful husbands and devoted fathers, but to follow in his footsteps and learn how best to take advantage of those around for the enhancement of their wealth and power (he even runs an online “university” for such a purpose).
It is clear that Vance and Tate have little in common, yet the Left treats them both as dangers to young men. Vance is called a sexist, just like Tate. Vance, who urges young men to become virtuous and functional members of society, is considered an advocate of toxic masculinity, just like Tate, who encourages rage-filled victim complexes in teenage boys. What is the reason for this?
The Left has a tendency to blanket-label its opponents. As a result of this, any two people on the Right, no matter how their opinions differ, may be considered equally racist, homophobic, or whatever insult the Left chooses to throw at them. One danger with this tactic is that the public might come to believe that polar opposites like Vance and Tate are kindred spirits, and judge them accordingly. Many on the Left will start to believe that Vance really is as bad as Tate, and therefore deserves all the various names he is called. However, the greater peril may be the influence such name-calling will have on the Right, particularly amongst young men. Many men will start to believe that Tate must be a worthy role model simply because he receives the same criticism from the Left as Vance unfairly suffers.
When the Left constantly directs slurs against those who do not deserve them, people will reasonably conclude that none of their words actually matter. As a result, when the Left rightly criticises Tate, no-one will take them seriously – a ‘boy who cried bigot’ situation if ever there was one. This phenomenon can be observed already in small sects of young right-wing men who express support for undeniable tyrants like Hitler or Mussolini simply because the Left (on this occasion, rightly) condemns them. Similarly, men will gravitate towards characters like Andrew Tate when they start to realise that the names the Left throws at him don’t actually mean anything, since they are clearly not applicable to the Left’s other targets like Vance.
One must be able to differentiate between men like Tate and Vance. One should not sympathise with Andrew Tate simply because he is called the same names as JD Vance. It is not sufficient to justify support for him merely that he is opposed to the political Left. Real leaders show that their words are backed by reason and thought, not merely blind rage against their real or perceived opponents. The Right must be able to tell the difference, and to cease supporting people like Tate, and the Left must stop its juvenile blanket-labelling of all its opponents, or the destructive consequences for both sides of the political aisle will only worsen.
Patrick Vincent