Take a step back and you’ll see that what Klingenstein and his fellow schoolboy Trump followers like is simply anti-intellectual bullying and crudity. Dolling up this deformed definition of masculinity in the language of virtue—conservative virtue!—is a grotesque betrayal of both virtue and conservatism. The politicians who fit this thin-skinned, insecure, ugly theory of manliness are poltroons like Rep. Matt Gaetz, who recently dazzled college kids with this brilliance: “Why is it that the women with the least likelihood of getting pregnant are the ones most worried about having abortions? Nobody wants to impregnate you if you look like a thumb.”

No doubt that’s true when Gaetz pays a premium for hookers who don’t look like thumbs…

I agree with those who complain that we have a masculinity crisis in this country. The problem is that the people shouting the loudest about it subscribe to a definition of manliness I find repugnant because it deliberately erases manliness properly understood. Manliness isn’t supposed to be about testicle tanning—-I can’t wait for the chapter of Josh Hawley’s Manhood on that—it’s supposed to be about the courage to do right when all the incentives are to do wrong. Re-read Kipling’s poem “If-” and you’ll see there’s nothing in there about owning the libs.

This new manliness celebrates the will to power, personal gratification, and the rejection of virtues in service of self-assertion and the conquest of others. “We need strong men,” Klingenstein insists without a trace of irony.