The fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk is both a human tragedy and a political inflection point. His politics were divisive — that must be acknowledged. But we must also face another truth. He connected with many young Americans, particularly young men, who feel invisible in our politics, young men searching for purpose and belonging who deserve to be heard.
Democrats right now have a rare opportunity to reach these voters — if they can learn what Mr. Kirk understood about connection. They should take a page out of his playbook.
New polling shows that young men, many of whom helped elect Donald Trump in 2024, are drifting away from the president. Since Mr. Trump took office in January, his approval ratings among men under 30 have fallen by 29 percentage points on the issue of inflation, 25 points on jobs and 21 points on the economy. Yet those losses don’t automatically translate into Democratic gains, because many of these men still see Democrats as weak, ineffective and unresponsive.
Mr. Kirk’s organization, Turning Point USA, didn’t create a traditional political network; it built a network of belonging, where community came before ideology, and culture became a driving force in politics. It established chapters on high school and college campuses that gave young conservatives a ready-made social life tied to politics. Its conferences featured appearances by many of the right’s boldface names and influencers, helping turn activism into a lifestyle.
In dozens of focus groups conducted by my polling firm, young men identified three forces shaping their lives: economic displacement that keeps stability out of reach, institutional distrust born of broken promises, and a crisis of belonging rooted in masculinity.
The data backs them up. The median age of a first-time home buyer has climbed to 38, the oldest since tracking began in 1981. For many, that gap between effort and reward doesn’t just feel unfair; it feels like betrayal. And betrayal fuels political anger.
Mr. Kirk’s network transformed this frustration into political energy by linking stalled progress to a broader narrative of national decline and conservative resurgence. His message blended faith, family and MAGA-infused patriotism with a simple pitch: You don’t have to accept being worse off than your parents. Democrats, by contrast, rarely spoke to young men’s deeper questions about success, significance or belonging, leaving a gap Mr. Kirk knew how to fill.
Yes, Turning Point USA created its Professor Watchlist, which, contra Mr. Kirk’s paeans to free speech, branded some educators as anti-American propagandists. Yes, Mr. Kirk pointed the finger at those he saw as political villains. Democrats answered with muddled messages. By failing to defend their values, they didn’t just leave the field open; they looked weaker in the eyes of the very young men they needed to reach.
That failure layered onto a widening distrust of American institutions. Many young men feel that neither party has their backs — a sentiment echoed across lines of race, class and geography. Mr. Kirk seized on the space created by that disconnect by building communities that offered belonging first and politics later.
Questions of identity loom even larger. I call it “masculinity vertigo,” which is the sense of spinning between contradictory expectations. Young men say they’re supposed to be tough but sensitive, ambitious yet selfless. Many want to be providers but can barely support themselves. When that seems unachievable, it breeds shame, resentment and political opportunity that Mr. Kirk, and later Mr. Trump, exploited. But even as Mr. Trump talks tough, his policies have done little to make it easier for young men to achieve the provider role that many see as central to their manhood.
Mr. Kirk’s network tapped into these tensions with a simple prescription: a return to order, discipline and clearly defined, traditional gender roles. Some on the left, by contrast, often treat masculinity itself as a suspect category, ceding the conversation to the right before it even begins.
From there, Mr. Kirk was playing the long game. He knew persuasion was a slow burn, built not in a single debate but drip by drip, through short clips, casual conversations and hours of podcasts. His brand of politics slipped into daily life until it felt less like ideology and more like identity.
Democrats have struggled to compete on that terrain. Their party relies too heavily on news conferences and campaign ads, whereas conservative influencers build loyalty year-round through gaming streams and fitness advice. Republicans meet young men where they already spend their time; Democrats, more often, expect them to show up in formal political spaces that feel staged.
Young men notice the difference. They see Republicans as confident and direct, Democrats as scripted and afraid to offend. Mr. Kirk capitalized on that contrast by showing up on left-leaning campuses, taking tough questions and engaging head-on. Young people didn’t always agree with him, but many respected his courage in meeting them where they were.
Too many Democrats still avoid those spaces. Young voters read that caution as unresponsiveness to their concerns, and trust erodes regardless of the policies the party can offer.
The takeaways from Mr. Kirk’s playbook aren’t complicated. In fact, that’s the problem. They’re the fundamentals of modern politics. And they can be done without alienating young women. Yet many Democrats, election after election, skip them. Until that changes, they will continue to lose ground.
Here are five places to start:
Abandon campaign-cycle thinking — Mr. Kirk built permanent social infrastructure, not seasonal outreach.
Meet young men in cultural spaces — Democratic politics should be made to feel organic in gaming, fitness and entrepreneurship communities.
Show leadership in hostile settings — Democrats must appear regularly on conservative podcasts and college campuses without scripts.
Highlight tangible economic pathways — talk up legislation that helps create opportunities for apprenticeships with living wages and housing policies that deliver affordability in young Americans’ lifetimes.
Create safe forums for talking about identity — Democrats need to form more spaces for discussing masculinity and purpose without ideological judgment.
Some progressives are testing these methods, but their efforts remain isolated. They need strong support from party leaders and donors willing to invest in long-term relationships, rather than just the next election cycle.
Charlie Kirk built one of the most effective youth mobilization machines in recent memory. He helped elect a president. Unless Democrats respond, the next generation of young men will belong to someone else. And the future of American democracy may go with them.
John Della Volpe is the founder of the public opinion research company SocialSphere and a co-founder of the organization Speaking With American Men.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.
Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp and Threads.