Before it became a content farm full of AI generated clickbait, Sports Illustrated was at one point a serious publication where major political figures discussed issues of national importance.

That was the case in December of 1960, when Sports Illustrated featured an article from John F. Kennedy, who was the president-elect at the time. The article was entitled “The Soft American,” and it addressed the crisis in masculinity that America was experiencing in the postwar period, as men took office jobs and adjusted to suburban life. In the article, Kennedy called on men to maintain their physical and mental fitness because the strength of the country depended on it. As Kennedy put it, “The knowledge that the physical well-being of the citizen is an important foundation for the vigor and vitality of all the activities of the nation, is as old as Western civilization itself.” It was a sentiment you’re unlikely to hear from politicians these days, expressed with an eloquence and maturity of thought and speech that you’re even less likely to hear.

But it was a theme that Kennedy hit often. It’s one of the reasons he was elected. For Democrats in the 1960s, masculinity was a virtue worthy of reinforcing and protecting as much as possible. Going “soft,” as Kennedy put it, was tempting. It was the natural way forward for a lot of people. But it would ultimately doom the country.

This wasn’t a particularly controversial point back then, or at any other point in world history. But in the 1960s, Democrats were the political party that most successfully communicated that message to Americans.

Tickets for “Am I Racist?” are on sale NOW! Buy here for a theater near you.

Six decades later, amid another genuine masculinity crisis — as evidenced by plummeting sperm counts, a rash of men who say they’re really women, declining rates of marriage and so on — Democrats are taking a very different approach. They’ve realized that emasculated men are easier to control. Weaker men are much less likely to resist wealth confiscation, gun confiscation and other indignities.  And because the modern Democrat Party cares about control more than anything else, they’re not taking JFK’s approach. Instead, they’re doing everything they can to make the masculinity crisis even worse.

Specifically, Democrats are now pushing a new plan to “revamp” and “update” the entire concept of masculinity for the modern age. This is being achieved through their two new mascots of modern masculinity — their geldings that they’ve been trotting around as a positive example for all men to follow — Tim Walz and Doug Emhoff.

This new ideal man — personified by Emhoff and Walz — is a bumbling cornball. He’s an obedient lackey who does not challenge anyone or anything, least of all the woman who he happily subordinates himself to. It is certainly no coincidence that the Left’s paragons of masculinity are men who play second fiddle to women. This might sound like one of those forbidden “conspiracy theories” that’s definitely not happening. But pretty much the entire corporate media has admitted it’s happening. Here’s CNN for example, explaining that Democrats are intentionally trying to appeal to men who are not, “testosterone laden”:

“They are doing so in trying to put forward male figures—Tim Walz being one of them, Doug Emhoff last night—who can speak to men out there who might not be the sort of testosterone-laden, gun-toting kind of guy."

CNN is calling Walz and Emhoff girly men!pic.twitter.com/0lM751nDfX

— Michael Knowles (@michaeljknowles) August 22, 2024

When CNN comes out and states that the Democrats’ vice presidential nominee and the vice president’s husband both have low testosterone — you know this is a message that the party pre-approved. At any other point in American history, this would’ve been seen as insulting and condescending, and rightfully so. But Democrats no longer believe it’s remotely insulting or condescending to publicly state, as explicitly as possible, that someone is an effeminate, low-testosterone wimp. That’s because they want to encourage that behavior as much as possible. That’s why CNN isn’t the only media outlet doing this.

The New York Times, for example, recently reported from the DNC that Tim Walz’s prime-time debut, “offered football analogies and an alternative to Trumpian masculinity.” The paper stated that “Mr. Walz contributed an idea of masculinity that contrasted with Donald Trump’s performative, pro-wrestling-influenced machismo.” According to the Times, “Not all coaches are men, but there are few pop-culture archetypes more male-coded. There’s the coach as paternalistic strongman — the my-way-or-the-highway leader whom you obey or you’re off the team. There’s the coach as icon — the Vince Lombardis and Tom Landrys whom fans hold equal to political leaders, or greater. But there’s also the coach as nurturer, mentor, character builder, surrogate father. … Wednesday’s production cast the Democrats as the party of both football and Oprah, balancing the ticket with a little inspirational, male-weepie sports drama.”

WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show

Yes, they wrote that Tim Walz adds “male-weepie drama” to the ticket, and we’re supposed to think that’s somehow “inspirational.” In fact, we’re supposed to think that a weepy male is so inspirational that it makes Tim Walz the “surrogate father” of America. Who needs your own father when you have a phony, manipulative politician who’s willing to cry a little on stage as he lies about every possible detail in his biography? Why not have Tim Walz raise your children? That’s what they’re saying. (And by the way, Tim Walz signed a law allowing Minnesota to effectively raise your children if he or she identifies as “trans” and flees to the state. So this isn’t really even a rhetorical question.)

The Independent ran a similar headline pushing Tim Walz as the symbol of masculinity, which is how you know this is all coordinated: “Tim Walz is clearly a midwest ‘man’s man’. But he’s the antidote to toxic Maga masculinity.” The Independent wrote, “The image of a high school football coach is often one of a whistle-clutching neanderthal. … Walz and the Harris campaign are making a point of highlighting the ways that the Minnesota governor has sought to break that cultural mold – like when the then-football coach took the initiative to sponsor a gay-straight alliance at the school where he worked.”

Yes, because nothing says “masculinity” like a grown man who, for some reason, helped to organize a gay club at his school so that he could talk with children about their sexuality — all before he eventually put tampons in the men’s bathroom. That’s what masculinity means to Democrats in 2024. It means that you’re willing to advance Left-wing politics at every available opportunity. It has nothing to do with your character, or your physical attributes or any of that. As long as you’re a loyal servant of the party, that makes you “masculine.”

For a white guy like Tim Walz, playing the role of a loyal foot soldier means that he has to be willing to be mocked, openly, for his skin color. So Tim Walz has happily played along with that. As I’ve discussed before, he appeared for this scripted moment with Kamala Harris, in which she mocks him for being white and he nods submissively. Watch:

Listen, I’m just not much of a spice guy. pic.twitter.com/u9yadJBMh2

— Tim Walz (@Tim_Walz) August 15, 2024

At the Independent Women’s Forum, Inez Stepman summed up what we’re seeing here as well as anyone. She wrote: “The Tim Walz packaging is meant to present a ‘welcoming’ invitation to white men as part of the rainbow coalition: join the DNC, and become merely a joke, not a villain.” As Stepman put it, Walz is playing the “bumbling, useless, non-threatening white dad in your typical corporate commercial,” which is “the only non-oppressor role for white men available in that worldview. … Same reason it’s white *dudes* for Harris and not white *men* – the latter too dignified, too threatening, there must be an air of degradation and court jester to the thing.”

This is what Democrats are now presenting as “what it means to be a man.” Here’s a top Democrat in the Michigan state senate to explain:

Dems have the right message w/ @Tim_Walz on what it means to be a man: joyful, family-focused, fun AND a hunter, veteran, and coach working arm-in-arm with a competent woman. Not the toxic hyper-masculinity that denigrates women on display in the GOP. (shoutout @dudes4harris) pic.twitter.com/HNCbyjoUEc

— Mallory McMorrow (@MalloryMcMorrow) August 9, 2024

No one on the Right, anywhere, has stated that being a man means you don’t care about your family. Nobody — at least no conservative — has ever suggested that real men don’t love their daughters. In fact we have always said exactly the opposite. We have always said that the first thing a real man does is protect and care for his family. That has been our message all along. It’s the Left that condemned such ideas as paternalistic and patriarchal. Also, needless to say, no one on the Right has stated that men can’t be happy, or that men can’t be veterans, or that men can’t “love football.” Nothing she’s saying there makes any sense; it’s a complete strawman. She’s lying because she wants viewers to go along with her framing, which is that Tim Walz is the definition of “what it means to be a man.” That is what the highest levels of the Democrat Party have told their lieutenants to push, so that’s what they’re doing.

WATCH THE TRAILER FOR ‘AM I RACIST?’ — A MATT WALSH COMEDY ON DEI

But if you’re not buying the Tim Walz pitch, there’s always Doug Emhoff, who was just forced to admit (many years after the fact) that he cheated on his first wife by having an affair with the nanny. He also refused to say what happened to his child after he got the nanny pregnant — stating only that he went through “tough times,” because everything is always about him. This is apparently another paragon of masculinity, according to Politico. They reported: “Meet Doug Emhoff: Dad-in-Chief. The second gentleman’s words aimed to humanize Harris as not just a policymaker, but a successful woman who balances her career and family. … The White House might be getting a wife guy as the country’s first-ever ‘first gentleman.'”

Yes, Doug Emhoff is a “Dad-in-chief.” He’s a real “wife guy,” for cheating on his wife and lying about it for years. Time Magazine agrees. They reported on what they called “The Doug Emhoff model of masculinity.” They wrote, after Emhoff’s speech at the DNC, that: “It was a relief to have an alternative model of manliness to admire and aspire to than the one often projected on the culture.”

These media organizations, like the Democrat Party that controls them, know exactly what they’re doing here. They know that Doug Emhoff and Tim Walz are not presenting an “alternative model of manliness” at all. They are in fact projecting the exact opposite of “manliness” because they want to destroy the concept of manliness entirely. They are projecting cowardice and submissiveness because cowardly and submissive men are their core constituency. That’s why, in the span of just 60 years, the so-called “Soft American” has gone from the bane of Democrat Party, to their model for America.