Scott Galloway Is Wrong About Everything

One of the fascinating aspects of the obsession with the plight of young men is the way in which both the left and the right manage to blame women.

Okay, maybe not everything. But on two of his favorite themes, he couldn’t be more wrong.

• Young men today are in a unique crisis.

• How to brand the Democratic Party.

Scott, I love you, man — you’re brilliant, inquisitive, passionate — but when it comes to these ideas, you are, as they say in your adopted England, totally crackers.

Okay, about this loony notion that somehow 2026 is a tough time to be a young American male.

Let’s start with the obvious question: when was a better time? For today to be a crisis, there must be great stretches of the past in which young men were far better off. Right? Okay, name the decade.

It’s so blatantly obvious that young men in pre-20th-century America had a far more difficult life — the odds of making it to 30 were only 45% compared to 7% today. So let’s start with the 1900s for comparison.

Say you were a male born in 1900, was that some glorious period to be a young male in America? There was a one-in-ten chance you might go to college. So by the age of 16 to 18, you were likely working and kept working until the last stages of your life.

While your slightly older brothers were being slaughtered in the fields of Flanders, at home the Spanish influenza killed more than the combined total of World War I, World War II, and the Korean and Vietnam wars.

Okay, granted, fewer males were sitting in their mom’s basement vaping, which seems to be a favorite metaphor for the horrors afflicting today’s young men. Instead, they were more likely to be coughing out their lives in a dark basement from mustard gas or influenza. Gee, I wonder which is a worse fate?