Democrats think they need a Joe Rogan of their own when what they actually need is a Christopher Rufo.

Today Rufo is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and just last week he received a prestigious Bradley Prize from one of the American right’s most generous foundations.

But Rufo is no ordinary think-tank scholar — he’s the scourge of DEI and the ideological architect of Harvard University’s troubles with the Trump administration.

His investigations into plagiarism by prominent academics have rocked higher education, helping to drive Harvard’s last president, Claudine Gay, to resign.

What could Democrats possibly gain from someone like Rufo?

Freedom from the cement shoes they’ve poured for themselves, for a start.

Democrats are captives of the political correctness Rufo specializes in dismantling.

“Diversity, equity, and inclusion” is a losing formula for the party, with disastrous implications for candidate selection and voter appeal.

The Democrats’ $20 million “Speaking With American Men” initiative promises to be about as successful in drawing men to the party as Tim Walz was.

After all, just look at what’s happening to David Hogg.

The high-school shooting survivor and gun-control activist, who is now a Harvard graduate and the youngest ever vice chair of the Democratic National Committee, may be stripped of his leadership role by the DNC next week following complaints that he and another vice chair, Malcolm Kenyatta, were illegitimately elected.

And what made their election invalid?

They didn’t fit the identity-politics criteria specified by the DNC’s rules.

If the two male vice chairs are forced out, a new election will select one man and one woman — a strict sex quota.

Kalyn Free, the Native American woman who in February lost the election for DNC vice chair to Hogg, says that race “violated the DNC Charter and discriminated against three women of color candidates.”

Hogg says the controversy “sends a horrible message to the public about our inability to run elections.”

It certainly does, but that’s not all: It also showcases how identity politics counts for more than merit, or popularity with voters, even in the highest reaches of the party.

Kamala Harris was never a plausible pick for Joe Biden’s presidential ticket in 2020 based on the popularity she’d demonstrated in the Democratic primaries — because she didn’t even make it as far as the first contest.

Nor was her home state, California, any kind of battleground.

Yet the party that put a black man at the top of the ticket in 2008 and 2012, and a woman on top in 2016, had to have diversity in 2020, too, and Harris, as a black woman, added more than her rivals.

It was already clear Biden might only be capable of serving a single term (if that), and Harris might have to take over as president at any time or become the nominee in 2024.

Was she cut out to win a presidential election?

Not based on any evidence she provided running for the nomination in 2020 — and of course, the question was answered definitively in the negative last November.

Identity politics, not electability, was Harris’ greatest asset — though, to be sure, the same might be said of Walz.

He did hail from a battleground region (the Midwest), if not a very close state (Minnesota), but Democrats made plain that Walz was on the ticket to be the kind of white man that might get white and male voters to desert Donald Trump.

The gambit failed miserably, with Trump even winning an outright majority with the youngest male cohort, Generation Z.

The Trump-Vance ticket, by contrast with Harris-Walz, didn’t try to win any diversity points; its aim was to win the election — and set up a plausible heir to Trump who could win the next one, too.

Liberating themselves from DEI would help Democrats choose better candidates for everything from DNC vice chair to vice president, and president, of the United States.

It would also send a stronger message to men, especially young ones, than tokenism of the Tim Walz variety ever could.

Young men of all racial and economic backgrounds know they’re the losers in DEI, not only because they count for less “diversity” than women do but also because the competitive spirit that’s characteristically (though not exclusively) male is devalued by the diversity industry.

That industry instead prioritizes an abstract, academic notion of “justice” based on outcomes — and trusts experts exempt from competition themselves to decide what’s just and fair.

A Joe Rogan wouldn’t get anywhere in the party of DEI, and $20 million won’t get that party anywhere with men.

What the Democrats need is the medicine Christopher Rufo prescribes: an end to DEI, a renewed sense of patriotism and pride in American history, and above all a return to competition and merit.

COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM