A Target of Ridicule
When Governor Tim Walz accepted the Democratic nomination for vice president, his son Gus, 17, was overcome with emotion and wept on national television. Punditry about this was quite mixed. Commenters on the right ridiculed the young man as a “puffy beta male,” a “blubbering bitch boy,” and “weird,” although a handful recanted upon learning that Gus Walz reportedly suffers nonverbal learning disorders, ADHD, and an anxiety disorder.
The Left Responds
The left responded with outrage, using three main arguments. First, some say Gus shouldn’t be subject to media attention at all. There was once implicit agreement, although often observed in the breach, to spare the minor children of politicians.
However, it’s easy to point to prior violations: unkind commentary about Tricia Nixon, Amy Carter, Chelsea Clinton, the Bush daughters, the Obama daughters. Barron Trump has largely escaped scrutiny, raising important questions about the sexism implicit in such negative attention. That Gus Walz has been treated with similar contempt may reflect the feminization of emotion in the minds of critics. In any case, many feel it’s a low blow to force any minor, including Gus, to bear the brunt of political scrutiny.
I hesitated writing this post for that very reason. But it’s a moot point: if widely read newspapers print opinions about Gus Walz, my doing so too hardly matters.
Second, the MAGA right is once again making fun of someone’s disabilities — a child in this case. Doing so recalls Donald Trump ridiculing Serge Kovaleski, a reporter with a congenital joint condition called arthrogryposis. This is plainly cruel and should be beneath the dignity of any adult, much less politicians elected to represent the public.
And third, many on the left honor Gus Walz as a role model, to the point that they argue that focusing on his neurodivergence is the wrong message. They say he demonstrates men’s capacity to express tender feelings. Many call his emotionality touching and admirable — something to emulate. It’s this third argument that brings Gus into the center of the culture wars.
Male Emotional Expression
Whether men should more freely express tender feelings separates the political culture of the left and right. To the left, men are psychologically healthier when comfortable with emotional expression more stereotypically associated with women. (Women, conversely, have tended to move away from these stereotypes, thus the demise of fainting couches and smelling salts.) In contrast, the right strives to maintain distinctions between the sexes, and thus opposes androgyny and the blurring of gender-coded behavior. Opposition to gender fluidity and transgenderism are particularly stark examples of this.
Gus Walz unwittingly serves as a perfect symbol of this cultural rift. To the left, he represents being in touch with feelings, even allowing oneself to be swept away in the moment. Losing one’s composure is sincere and vulnerable — more genuinely human. In a world of macho posturing and aloofness, Gus is a beacon of light.
Yet to the right, Gus Walz represents all that is wrong with the left. Men and boys are different than women and girls. The former are ideally tough and in control of themselves; the latter are called the weaker sex for a reason. Emotions such as patriotism, anger, and competitiveness are manly, tears and vulnerability are not. Lauding Gus Waltz’s emotional instability reveals the weakness of the left — and the risk this weakness poses for society at large.
Who’s Missing? Gus Himself
The problem with this political analysis is that it leaves Gus Walz, the person, out of the discussion.
He’s very likely mortified by all the attention focused on his tears, whether from the left or the right. Who wouldn’t be, particularly as a teenager? Avoiding undue attention is far more important to most teens than any political or cultural meaning others project onto them. Gus Walz didn’t sign up to be the poster boy of open emotionality, and would surely decline the honor if asked. How do you imagine he feels, seeing his weeping face everywhere in the news — even from those who admire him?
But it goes further than this. As a psychiatrist, it’s clear to me that people can be dysfunctional at either extreme — of whatever spectrum we’re talking about. For every person with OCD who should “lighten up,” there’s another person who could stand to be more detail-oriented. Likewise, anyone, male or female, can be “isolated from affect” (not in touch with feelings) on the one hand, or overwhelmed by feelings on the other. Neither extreme is ideal.
Of course, Gus may be fine as he is. We don’t really know. But it’s fairly likely he’s not comfortable with his own emotionality; many neurodiverse people are not. If his emotional outbursts attract undue attention, as they clearly did at the convention, or if he often feels out of control or overwhelmed by his feelings, he may be deeply ashamed of them and of himself. If we asked him, he’d very likely prefer to control his emotions in public, so he wouldn’t stand out so much.
The Liability of Being a Cultural Symbol
Emotional aloofness is limiting and unhealthy. But being too emotional has its drawbacks too. It can be a social liability, a source of shame, a blow to one’s self-image.
In the left’s haste to rise to this young man’s defense — and to join the right in using him as a political-cultural symbol — it ignores his lived experience. Both sides of the political spectrum appear not to care how this young man really feels, since he symbolizes their disparate stances so well.
The shaming of Gus Walz is indefensible. No one should ridicule children. No one should mock the disabled, whether children or adults. Other things being equal, a son shedding tears of joy for his dad is more good than bad. But none of that means Gus Walz is happy that he was emotionally overcome in front of a national audience. With a little empathy, we can honor his feelings without rhapsodizing about them.
Leave a Reply