We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

The term “permanent campaign” emerged in 1976 and has come to mean candidates beginning their next campaign immediately after election day. Think Gavin Newsom, who is already campaigning for the 2028 presidency. Trump’s 2024 victory, however, suggests a new political concept: never-ending public grief over having lost, a behavior akin to mass hysteria.

Universities abound with traumatized Harris supporters seeking mental health counseling to overcome their misery. One “bereaved” student even desperately announced on social media, “I may actually kill myself in front of the capitol building as a form of protest.” Such hysterical reactions also entail fantasies such as claiming that Trump will soon ban all birth control or arrest Harris voters. At Princeton University traumatized students enjoyed safe space “listening circles” where students could “de-stress” with arts and crafts and coloring books. Harvard, Penn, and Columbia cancelled classes to accommodate scared and bewildered students. The Collective, ” a “queer owned” vegan, sustainable grocery store in Iowa closed immediately following Trump’s victory “to protect our crew and to feel what needs to be felt.”

This despair drove people to consider fleeing the country. Google searches for “move to Canada” surged 1270% post-election, and similar searches for immigrating to New Zealand climbed nearly 2000%. A poll among Harris supporters found that 90% said that they were considering moving abroad while 80% are thinking about relocating to a different state,

Newspaper advice columns offer advice to Democrats on dealing with Trump voters over holiday meals. Even before he assumed office, thousands recently marched in Manhattan accusing Trump of being anti-trans, homophobic, a racist, and guilty of systematic oppression. One high school student posted a list of Trump supporters to be killed, while a Washington Post columnist claimed that the Republicans want to kill your kids. A Politico story claimed that President Trump would soon seek revenge, including incarceration, deportation, and execution against presidents Biden and Obama, Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi.

Women seem particularly upset, and according to one account, this frenzy has taken the form of screaming fits, shaving one’s head, perpetually wearing a mask, and an upsurge in women refusing to date or marry men, have sex with them, or have children. Pro-abortion women have fantasized about poisoning men as a response to Trump’s anti-abortion stance. And as the Trump presidency draws nearer, countless Democratic officeholders have promised to resist Trump at all costs.

Today’s mass hysteria is historically unique. When Richard Nixon lost to John F. Kennedy in 1960 by .07% of the popular vote with credible evidence of fraud in Chicago and Texas, defeated Republicans did not flock to country clubs to get drunk. After Lyndon Johnson crushed Barry Goldwater in 1964, “Goldwater Girls” like Hillary Rodham (the future Mrs. Bill Clinton) did not collapse on a fainting couch clutching her pearls. The bitterly contested Bush v. Gore election of 2000 did not drive Democratic college students to demand milk and cookies to soothe their distress. American elections have historically ended with one side quickly conceding defeat and then moving on to the next contest.

What changed in 2024? The reaction to Trump’s victory reflects the feminization of American culture, particularly how people resolve conflict. The election represents both a cultural and political shift.

Heather Mac Donald observes that men and women generally differ in prioritizing safety and inclusion vs. accepting conflict, with women generally preferring the former over the latter. Women also easily embrace victimhood regardless of the statistics showing that men are the ones falling behind. This pattern is most visible on college campuses, where women are typically in the forefront in demanding safe spaces and speech codes to suppress divisive views while men, by contrast, welcome confrontations as vital to uncovering truth.

Mac Donald explains that conflict aversion rests upon women’s ingrained vulnerability to heightened anxiety, emotional volatility, and susceptibility to depression. Thus, men likely see a provocative speech as an opportunity to hear a lively, informative debate; women will anticipate that speech in terms of its discomforting impact, particularly if it might offend the vulnerable, and thus to be avoided.

Similarly, a Harvard Gazette review of sex-related differences in conflict management notes that men are more inclined to be aggressive and combative than women, but male culture provides reconciliation mechanisms such as handshakes and hugs for promoting peace afterwards. Human evolution experts suggest that this post-conflict reconciliation, the “male warrior hypothesis,” is hard-wired biologically since today’s foe might be needed as a future ally in a larger conflict.

A familiar illustration of the masculine “fight and then reconcile” style is the pick-up basketball game among men. Pushing and shoving are the norm, but when the game ends, no matter how close the score, players often go out for a few beers or pizza, and after 15 minutes, few can remember the score or who played on what team. Conceivably, reconciliation rituals reflect the need to prevent dangerous violent escalations given men’s innate aggressiveness. Game over means game over. Compare this closure to what occurs on The View TV program where angry women endlessly rehash alleged injustices.

Donald Trump embodies this “male warrior hypothesis.” In the 2016 GOP primary he personally attacked Marc Rubio (little Marco”), but quickly reconciled, and in 2024 nominated Rubio as his Secretary of State. This hate/love pattern is routine for Trump, and most men intuitively grasp it — today’s basketball opponent may be tomorrow’s teammate.

As feminine values grow more prominent, they shape the political landscape, particularly in the Democratic Party where college educated women are increasingly coming to dominate. For many women, the hypermasculine, occasionally vulgar Trump with his love of violent mixed martial arts is genuinely frightening. He is, at least for some women, the classic abusive, toxic male, and their instinctive reaction is to resist in a female way — threaten to run away, seek a comforting safe space, attack tormentors verbally or on social media and otherwise react histrionically, and these hostile emotional reactions often linger. “Game over” never happens. By contrast, men who lose will likely react as they do when losing a pick-up basketball game — get you next time.

This sex-based divide may endure for upcoming elections, but the arithmetic for a feminist-brand party will not ensure victory regardless of the Democrat’s aggressive pro-women agenda. The Harris/Walz ticket did terrible among men, while Trump did reasonably well among women despite Harris’s ardent pro-women rhetoric.

Most women will not massively mobilize for a femininized candidate, and this aversion rests a near universal hard-wired preference for masculine traits such as strength, resolve, decisiveness, willingness to take risk, competitiveness, and similar male leadership attributes. Caring and compassion are not in the President’s job description. Moreover, as Heather Mac Donald put it, “Feminism was zero-sum: it championed females by tearing males down.” Not a savvy election strategy. Recall that Hillary Clinton could not ride the “sisterhood” issue to victory. To be sure, these “male” qualities are not strictly biological — think Margaret Thatcher — but most people, regardless of sex, know that “male traits” are vital for national survival. Alexander the Great put it succinctly: “I am not afraid of any army of lions led by a sheep; I am afraid of an army of sheep led by a lion.”

Image: AT via Magic Studio