最新杏吧原创

In other words, I鈥檓 about as qualified to write a book on home repair as Josh Hawley is to write one on manhood.

That鈥檚 not to say Missouri鈥檚 senior senator doesn鈥檛 know a thing or two about being a man.

He鈥檚 married, a father and apparently capable of doing bold, manlike things. Like railing against government and corporate officials. Raising a clenched fist like any 鈥�60s revolutionary wannabe. Setting speed records in the face of danger. Writing provocative tweets that

But his most courageous, manliest move might be writing a book titled 鈥淢anhood,鈥� as though , including 165 million males, would welcome instruction on the 鈥渕asculine virtues America needs鈥� from a 43-year-old child of privilege.

Those virtues include independence, courage, assertiveness, responsibility, industriousness, faithfulness 鈥� which, of course, are not exclusively male virtues.

Reaction to the book, as Post-Dispatch political columnist Joe Holleman noted, tongue-in-cheek, has been 鈥減redictably positive and negative.鈥�

People who admire Hawley 鈥� which, based on election results, would include most Missouri voters 鈥� will embrace his message and insight, much of it borrowed liberally from the Bible. People who abhor his politics probably won鈥檛. (Indeed, more substantial reviews than the one you are now reading have dismissed Hawley as a 鈥�,鈥� 鈥溾�� and 鈥�.鈥�)

And yet, even his harshest critics ought to acknowledge Hawley raises legitimate concerns.

Boiled down: Hawley says there are just too many young American men who are underemployed, underperforming at school and generally underachieving at life. Disengaged and aimless, they fill their days with screens, leisure and pornography. Many are depressed, abuse drugs and commit suicide.

This spells trouble for the United States, Hawley warns, because no functioning republic can survive without virtuous men. Without virtuous men, crime rises, disinterest in work becomes commonplace and, 鈥渋n perhaps the starkest example of male weakness, fatherlessness abounds.鈥�

According to Hawley, blame largely falls on modern liberalism, whatever that is, and the American 鈥渓eft,鈥� which he says controls the press, the academy and politics. The 鈥渓eft,鈥� he says, 鈥渓ong ago decided that male strength is dangerous (and) seems to welcome men who are passive and tame, who will do as they are told and sit in their cubicles, eyes affixed to their screens.鈥�

Exactly how the left has achieved this result 鈥� and to what end 鈥� is hard to discern. Hawley name-checks a cast of heavies, including Greek philosopher Epicurus, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Karl Marx and Herbert Marcuse. But his descriptions are caricatures, unsophisticated and simplistic, which makes it difficult to find the threads that tie his argument together. He peppers his analysis with anecdotes about his family 鈥� visiting grandparents, reading to his children, meeting his future wife 鈥� and lots from Scripture.

So much is left out, though. For an economic populist who鈥檚 railed against the export of U.S. manufacturing, it鈥檚 surprising that there鈥檚 no discussion of the wrenching effect of the Great Recession on working-age young people. There鈥檚 no discussion of the legacy of more than 20 years of war and violence. Or the public policies that deepened economic inequality.

Hawley also never addresses his own unrepentant fealty to a president whose masculine 鈥渧irtues鈥� leave much to be desired. Donald Trump, in fact, is never mentioned.

Still, whether Hawley鈥檚 鈥淢anhood鈥� succeeds in elevating his national stature or not, it might be worth a read, especially for Missourians 鈥� before they vote in 2024.