We are living through a quiet but consequential redefinition of manhood—one shaped not by wisdom, responsibility, or lived experience but increasingly by noise, performance, and profit. A growing segment of voices, amplified across social media, promotes a hollow version of masculinity rooted in indulgence, detachment, and what can only be described as a kind of party-boy nihilism. It dismisses discipline as outdated, responsibility as optional, and commitment as a trap. It celebrates the illusion of freedom while quietly stripping away meaning. But let us be clear: Much of this is not philosophy. It is business. An industry is emerging that is highly organized and highly active, built on selling identity to young men searching for direction. Courses, subscriptions, content funnels, and “alpha” branding are all designed to monetize uncertainty. The product is not empowerment; it is dependency. The message is not clarity; it is confusion packaged as confidence. And confusion, it turns out, is very profitable. Young men today are navigating a world radically different from that of previous generations. Technology, automation, and cultural shifts have disrupted the traditional pathways that once defined manhood labor, provision, and physical responsibility. In many ways, this evolution has created opportunity. But it has also created a vacuum. When purpose is no longer assigned, it must be chosen. And choice, without guidance, can easily become drift. Most people will drift. That is not an indictment; it is a reality of human nature. We are shaped by what is visible, what is repeated, and what is rewarded. In an environment where the loudest voices dominate the conversation, those voices begin to define the norm, regardless of their substance. And here lies the deeper challenge. Men who represent enduring discipline, accountability, service, family, and stewardship are often the least incentivized to compete in this digital arena. They are building businesses, raising children, and caring for communities. They are not monetizing masculinity; they are living it. And because of that, they are often quieter. Meanwhile, those selling emptiness are relentless. They are present in every feed, every algorithm, every moment of idle scrolling. They understand attention. They understand insecurity. And they understand how to convert both into revenue. This creates an imbalance not of truth but of volume. The result is a generation exposed more frequently to distortion than to depth. A generation told that manhood is about consumption rather than contribution, dominance rather than discipline, image rather than integrity. But real masculinity has never been defined by ease. It has been defined by what a man is willing to carry. To provide when it is difficult. To remain when it is easier to leave. To lead without applause. To build something that outlives him. These are not marketable slogans. They do not go viral. But they are the foundation upon which families, communities, and nations build. And they require something the current culture often resists: responsibility. The truth is, freedom without responsibility is not freedom at all; it is drift. And drift, left unchecked, leads not to fulfillment but to emptiness. This is why the moment we are in is not just cultural; it is moral. If manhood is defined by those who profit from its erosion, we should not be surprised by the outcomes: disconnection, instability, and a generation uncertain of its place in the world. But there is another path. And it begins with those who know better choosing not to remain silent. Men who understand the weight and privilege of manhood must be willing to step into the conversation not as performers, not as influencers, but as examples. Not to sell but to serve. Not to dominate the space but to bring balance to it. This does not require abandoning the modern world. It requires intentional engagement. It means showing that strength and humility are not opposites. That discipline is not restriction but liberation. That commitment is not confinement but purpose. It means reminding the next generation that manhood is not something you consume; it is something you build, day by day, choice by choice. And yes, the incentives may not be equal. Those selling illusion will always have an advantage in speed and scale. But those grounded in truth have something far more powerful: durability. Because in the end, empty narratives collapse under the weight of reality. The question is not whether masculinity will be defined. It will be. The question is whether it will be shaped by those who profit from confusion or by those willing to live, model, and pass on something better. The next generation is watching. And what they see, what we choose to show them, will determine far more than a trend. COPYRIGHT 2026 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post The Quiet Crisis of Manhood and the Profitable Lie Filling the Void appeared first on The Daily Signal.

As America approaches its 250th anniversary, citizens anticipate celebrating our country’s history and the principles on which the nation was founded. The Declaration of Independence states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with unalienable rights.” As one popular podcaster, and several policy experts, noted last month during a Heritage Foundation forum on “Catholicism and the American Founding,” this is one of the main principles of Catholicism.   The forum, held on March 19, featured popular Catholic podcaster Michael Knowles and a handful of scholars and academics. The speakers discussed the links between America’s founding principles and ideas found in earlier theological works. “The government that they established is … very closely in accord with the ideal regime laid out by St. Thomas [Aquinas] in ‘Summa Theologica’ and also in ‘De Regno,’” Knowles said. Knowles, a commentator, author and host of “The Michael Knowles Show,” was joined by Jay W. Richards, vice president of social and domestic policy and the William E. Simon senior research fellow in American principles and public policy at The Heritage Foundation. The philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, Knowles said, influenced American political thought by defining the best regime as having the aspects of a king, a monarchy, an aristocrat and a democracy.   The president is “the last monarch of the ancient regime,” he said, while the judicial branch and Congress are the aristocratic and democratic elements.  Richards noted that America’s Founding Fathers read Reformed and Lutheran scholastics, and that those treatises read like Aquinas. Knowles added that America, founded mainly by protestants, ended up resembling the ideals of Aquinas and the Thomists. In a later discussion, Brenda Hafera, assistant director and research fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies, noted that the idea of being “created equal” is another key element of Catholic thought. Elizabeth Edwards Spalding, senior fellow at the Pepperdine University School of Public Policy, agreed with Hafera: “I was thinking on that, too, because all men are created equal. That’s so very Catholic.” The post Michael Knowles Joins Scholars to Discuss Catholicism and the American Founding appeared first on The Daily Signal.

THE WASHINGTON STAND—We all need hope in these challenging days. There’s a popular saying about hope that goes something like this: “People can live about 40 days without food, about three days without water, about eight minutes without air, but only for a few seconds without hope.” At Easter, Christians celebrate the resurrection of Christ, and the resurrection is all about hope. Now, Christian hope is a bit different than the typical meaning of hope. Most people think of “hope” essentially in terms of a wishful desire: “I hope it doesn’t rain” or “I hope my team wins the game.” For the believer, our hope is confidence based on facts. The Apostle Paul lays out the facts: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3-4). Critics claim that the resurrection of Christ is mere myth, a fabrication by the faithful, just a fable. What if they are right? Interestingly, Paul goes along with that hypothetical assertion in his first letter to the Corinthians and declares that the result would be devastating for the Christian faith (see 15:21-19). If Christ did not rise from the dead: 1) Preaching is pointless; 2) Faith is futile; 3) Disciples are deceivers; 4) Sin is sovereign; 5) Death has dominion; and 6) the Future only holds false hope. He concludes: “If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied” (15:19). What a hopeless conclusion?! But here’s the Good News: The Bible offers convincing proof of the facts of Christ’s resurrection that first Easter, which provides the foundation for our hope. In the cold aftermath of Christ’s agony in the garden, His arrest, His trial, His scourging, His crucifixion, and His entombment, Jesus presented Himself to His followers as having been raised from the dead. Dr. Luke put it this way: “He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3). The text says that Jesus presented them “many proofs.” The old KJV puts it this way: “many infallible proofs.” As Luke wrote under the inspiration of the Spirit of God, he chose a technical term that means that the Lord Jesus gave His disciples such compelling, convincing evidence, that together, these proofs drove away every doubt and quelled every question that He was risen indeed. Notice the word “many.” He gave them an overabundance of evidence that having been dead, He was now alive. Why should we believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ? Because of the compelling and overwhelming eyewitness evidence of His resurrection. On 11 specific occasions we are told that Jesus appeared to His followers across a 40-day period. He appeared indoors and outdoors. He appeared on a mountain in Galilee and on a suburban road outside of Jerusalem. He appeared by day and by night. He appeared to individuals, small groups, and to one group as large as 500 people. He first appeared to Mary Magdalene, at dawn, in the garden, by the tomb (John 20:11-18), and then to a group of women who were coming to anoint His dead body (Matt. 28:1-10). His third appearance that first Easter was to two discouraged disciples on their way to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-32). When He came to their home, He blessed the bread, broke the bread, and gave the bread to them, and their eyes were opened, and they knew that it was the risen Lord. And on that same first Easter, the record tells us that He appeared to Simon Peter—a private, individual encounter between the risen Lord and this fallen follower that helped turn Him from Peter cowering before a servant girl to Peter boldly preaching at Pentecost (1 Cor. 15:5). The fifth and final appearance that Easter Sunday was in the evening to a gathering of the 10 in the upper room, Thomas being absent (John 20:19-23). Jesus came and stood in their midst, and when they saw His hands, feet, and side, they were overjoyed to see the risen Lord. The next week, Thomas, the doubter, came face to face with Jesus. Jesus said “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” Thomas fell on his face and cried: “My Lord and My God!” (John 20:24-29). According to Luke, Jesus even ate broiled fish as proof that He was risen indeed (Luke 24:36-49). This was no apparition hovering about. He had a body that functioned, one they could touch. He gave them infallible proofs. He appeared again to the disciples on the shores of Galilee, fixed them a meal and told them where to let down their nets for a miraculous catch (John 21:1-13). In 1 Cor. 15:6, Paul mentions the most impressive appearance of all, in which He appeared to over 500 people. This was likely the same appearance recorded by Matthew in Galilee when Jesus gave the Great Commission (Matt. 28:16:20). But then Paul makes this stunning statement: that most of them were still alive, in AD 55 when he wrote the first Corinthian letter. He put his own character and name on the line. Look them up! Ask them! You can find them! They have identities, addresses, and families! More than half of them are still alive! Someone observed that if those 500 people had testified six minutes each in a court of law, you would have more than 50 hours of accumulated evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ! The risen Christ also appeared to His younger half-brother James according to 1 Cor. 15:7. They grew up in the same Galilean home there in Nazareth, but in John 7:5, we are told that James didn’t believe in Him. And yet, something changed His brother James from being a doubter and a skeptic to becoming the first pastor of the Jerusalem church, a writer of Scripture, and a martyr for the Christian faith. Could it have been anything other than the appearance of his resurrected older half-brother, standing in the presence of this One who had grown up alongside him in that Galilean home? Our Lord appeared to all of the apostles and then appeared before ascending into heaven from the Mount of Olives (see Acts 1:9-11). All told, there are 11 specific times scattered across 40 days, not to mention the unrecorded appearances during that time. If we simply take the evidence as it is given to us in the documents of the New Testament, there is no other conclusion than to confess that Jesus Christ who was dead, is now alive, for God raised Him out of that tomb, and He triumphed over death, hell, and the grave. Convincing proofs. Too many people saw Him on too many different occasions for it to have been a hoax, a fabrication, a myth. There’s no way that 500 people could be kept under hypnosis. Somebody would have leaked it had it been a sham. He gave them infallible proofs. And years later, they were still convinced. The Apostle John wrote in his first letter: “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life” (1 John 1:1). Jesus is the audible, visible expression of the invisible God! Half a century later, John still maintained that he had seen, heard, and touched the risen Lord. Or what about old Peter, that gruff fisherman, by no means a mystic? In his second letter, he said: “For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty” (2 Peter 1:16). And these same disciples who saw Him live and die and live again maintained their belief until their own deaths, most of them as martyrs. The Risen Christ offered convincing, infallible proofs of His resurrection from the dead. What does the fact of Christ’s resurrection mean for us? Because Christ has been raised from the dead, our preaching is profitable, our faith is fruitful, the Lord’s disciples are dependable, sin is subdued, death is defeated, and the future is fabulous! Because Christ is risen, He has taken the sting out of sin. He has taken the gloom out of the grave. He has taken the dread out of death. He has given us a hope that is rock solid and sure! That is Good News we should share with others who do not yet have that same confident, life-giving hope. Originally published by The Washington Stand. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Easter Means Hope appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Prominent Democrats considering a 2028 presidential run face a new litmus test: telling the public where they stand on America’s relationship with Israel. As they check the boxes for 2028 by publishing books, visiting crucial primary states, and booking podcast interviews, here’s where some potential presidential contenders stand on Israel. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York This week, Ocasio-Cortez told members of the Democratic Socialists of America that she would oppose all aid for Israel, including for defense, as confirmed by her chief of staff. “I believe the Israeli government is well able to fund the Iron Dome system, which has proven critical to keep innocent civilians safe from rocket attacks and bombardment,” Ocasio-Cortez said in a statement afterward. “Consistent with my voting record to date, I will not support Congress sending more taxpayer dollars and military aid to a government that consistently ignores international law and U.S. law.” Kamala Harris The former vice president and Democrat presidential nominee had to deal with the issue of providing aid to Israel in 2024. Harris attempted to distance herself from then-President Joe Biden’s policies while avoiding pressure from the party’s left flank to support an embargo on arms shipments to Israel. Should Harris once again seek the presidency, she would likely face further questions about the U.S.-Israeli relationship. Asked in an October 2025 interview whether she believed Israel had committed genocide, she did not directly answer the question. “Listen, it is a term of law that a court will decide,” Harris said of the “genocide” label. “But I will tell you that when you look at the number of children that have been killed, the number of innocent civilians that have been killed, the refusal to give aid and support, we should all step back and ask this question and be honest about it, yeah.” Gov. JB Pritzker of Illinois Pritzker, who is Jewish, has denounced the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, an organization that advocates American support for the state of Israel. “It became an organization that was supporting [President] Donald Trump and people who follow Donald Trump,” Pritzker recently said. “AIPAC really is not an organization that I think today I would want any part of.” Several Illinois Democrat candidates for the U.S. House criticized AIPAC by name in recent primaries. Pritzker has also criticized Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, accusing Trump of “simply following Netanyahu into” the conflict in Iran. Gov. Andy Beshear of Kentucky This week, Beshear, governor of the Bluegrass State since 2019, declined to label Israel’s military actions in Gaza “genocide” in an interview with Politico. “That’s becoming one of those new litmus tests that we said we would never do as a party again,” Beshear told Politico of the genocide question.  Dem @GovAndyBeshear is declining to call Israel’s actions in Gaza “genocide.”“That’s becoming one of those new litmus tests that we said we would never do as a party,” he told our @DashaBurns on #TheConversation.Listen to the full interview: https://t.co/iMrcJwsgGU pic.twitter.com/4dvaLhPrEo— POLITICO (@politico) March 27, 2026 “It’s trying to throw out a word and, ‘Are you going to raise your hand or are you not going to?’” Beshear attempted to draw a fine line on the issue, arguing Israel’s defense of itself after Oct. 7, “could have been done without a lot of the suffering.” The governor also advocated for “a future with an ally in Israel,” adding, “we need decision-makers there that are not acting the way [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu is.” Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania Shapiro, who is Jewish, has pushed for a similarly pro-Israel, anti-Netanyahu stance. “For those who begin by suggesting Israel doesn’t have the right to exist as a Jewish state, I think that is a recipe for permanent war,” he said in a recent appearance on Pod Save America. Nevertheless, he has defended those who criticize Israel. “I fundamentally disagree with your viewpoint, but I don’t think you’re an antisemite,” Shapiro said on the “Higher Learning” podcast of those who accuse Israel of “apartheid.” He added, “I think that you are learning and struggling and grappling with issues that are really, really tough, and you formed an opinion, one that I disagree with, that you seemingly hold very honestly.” Gov. Gavin Newsom of California In a recent interview with Politico, Newsom attempted to stake out a position as a pro-Israel candidate but with qualifications. Asked if he is a Zionist, Newsom replied, “I revere the state of Israel. I’m proud to support the state of Israel.” Asked whether he considers himself a Zionist, @GavinNewsom tells our @jmart he's "proud" to support Israel, but "deeply, deeply" opposes Netanyahu’s leadership.Newsom explains his Israel stance — and defends his "apartheid" comments?Full interview: https://t.co/sINA2hvbVF pic.twitter.com/NXVSFXVJot— POLITICO (@politico) March 24, 2026 He qualified, “I deeply, deeply oppose Bibi Netanyahu’s leadership [and] his opposition to the two-state solution and deeply oppose how he is indulging the far right as it relates to what’s going on in the West Bank.” In a February interview, Newsom said he has never accepted money from AIPAC and “never will.” The post Where Do Dem Presidential Favorites Stand on Israel? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

RealClearWire—New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has a Florida problem. Facing a ballooning budget deficit and an ever-narrowing lead in her reelection bid against Republican candidate Bruce Blakeman, Nassau County’s Trump-endorsed executive, the Sunshine State is draining cash from her coffers and has been for years. “I need people who are high-net worth to support the generous social programs that we want to have in our state,” she told a Politico interviewer last week, musing that “maybe the first step should be to go down to Palm Beach and see who we can bring back home because our tax base has been eroded.” Hochul’s fanciful declaration got a big round of laughs from Palm Beach residents, many of whom moved here in recent years specifically to get away from the Democrat governor, her problematic state, its high taxes, and its social programs, which were evidently not “generous”—or successful—enough to dissuade them. Maybe her first step should be to start at home and ask—we often do—why she can’t find the money in New York, which already has the nation’s highest tax rates and, especially in Islamocommunist-governed New York City, is about to go higher. Even before Hochul took over from New York’s disgraced former Gov. Andrew Cuomo in 2021, the exodus was well underway. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, over 1 million New York state residents have moved elsewhere since 2020, with Florida consistently ranking as their No. 1 destination. Florida’s population, meanwhile, rose by about 2 million in the same period, welcoming transplants seeking the good life not only from New York, but from adjacent and almost equally blue New Jersey, as well as California, Illinois, high-tax New England states, and other unfavorable jurisdictions. The initial burst of transplants brought not just the very wealthy, but hordes of well-paid professionals in finance, consulting, tech, entertainment, medicine, and other lucrative fields that could either accommodate remote work or easily absorb new arrivals. Tales abounded of desperate searches for real estate, school admissions, club memberships, medical services, used cars, and just about anything else new Floridians need to live the dream happily in a state where income and inheritance taxes are constitutionally banned. New York’s tax base took a serious hit, especially under Hochul’s five-year watch. More than half of those who left the state were New York City residents, some 546,000 by April 2024, who took their above-average taxable income and other liquid assets with them. In 2025, over 50,000 more city residents left. In 2023 alone, IRS data records show that New York State lost $9.9 billion in gross adjusted income. Taken cumulatively, and assuming our new neighbors don’t listen to Hochul and go back, Unleash Prosperity’s data suggests New York could lose as much as $517 billion over the long term. As Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis frequently reminds us, since 2020, Florida has had the largest in-migration of capital of any state, not just today, but in all of American history. In those same years, New York has lost more capital than any other state. Hochul is right to worry about more high-income earners dropping New York like a hot potato—so worried, obviously, that her comments suggest she needs to focus on recovering those who are already gone. According to the Citizens Budget Commission, a nonpartisan fiscal watchdog, the 20,000 New Yorkers who have come to Palm Beach County in recent years brought with them their annual per capita income of $190,000, over three times the national average yearly income. Miami is an even greater magnet for New York wealth. The 26,000 New Yorkers who moved there boast per capita earnings of $266,000. New York’s share of the nation’s millionaires has declined by 31% over the last five years, while Palm Beach’s billionaire population has, according to some calculations, increased by 50% or more. The election of Zohran Mamdani anticipated $100 million in Florida real estate deals within days of his winning New York City’s mayoralty. New York flight is now such a commonplace occurrence that MovingPlace, a relocation advisory website, shows middle-income earners, bracketed between $50,000 and $200,000, now decisively exceeding the number of high-income earners who leave in what it calls “the affordability exodus.” Hochul claimed that “there are some patriotic millionaires who stepped up” and went back, but there is remarkably little evidence of any serious trend to return to New York. In recent years, the number of people who made the opposite move has hovered just above 20,000, a fraction of those who have come. Former New York City Mayor Eric Adams embarrassed himself trying to encourage this path in 2022, when he placed billboard ads in several left-leaning Florida municipalities, urging people to come back, allegedly so they would enjoy greater free-speech rights. Few went, and in a brutal confirmation of his hypocrisy, a New York City attorney who had the temerity to ask the mayor when the COVID-19 masks would finally come off was summarily fired. Hochul certainly bears some responsibility for her state’s larger predicament. While running for reelection the first time, in 2022, she memorably invited her opponents and those who disagreed with her high-tax policies to leave. “[Donald Trump and [2022 New York gubernatorial candidate Lee] Zeldin and [New York 2022 lieutenant governor candidate Marc] Molinaro—just jump on a bus and head down to Florida where you belong. OK? Get out of town. Because you don’t represent our values.” Perhaps they don’t, but now she is hoping the same group will “cut me the checks if you want to be supportive.” No thanks, Gov. This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post A Florida Man’s Response to NY’s Hochul appeared first on The Daily Signal.