The tragedy of his legacy is that he agreed to lead the probe into whether Donald Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election.
The Russian collusion fiasco was one of the great political frauds in U.S. history. It’s a shame Mueller’s long record of service was marred by ill-judged decisions made in this era of acrimony and confusion.
It is such a relief to read such a thoughtful, well-expressed essay in a time when my mouth seems to continually open in shock and my mind numb at the crass, callous, ignorant and consistently vulgar expressions uttered by the Commander in Chief and those who serve with him.
I watched the Inside the Manosphere documentary, and I was appalled by how shallow the movement's ideals are. What a terrible example for young men to follow.
Really interesting piece. The idea that masculinity is evolving toward connection and emotional honesty resonates.
It’s funny how this shows up in music too - even in unexpected places. Songs like Sløtface’s “For the Boys” are almost poking at those same expectations from a different angle.
Culture always seems to get there alongside the conversation.
I appreciate your intent here. I would just note that "surplus value" is rhetorically implicated in Marx's critique of capitalism. Capitalism requires the creation of surplus value in order to perpetuate itself. Surplus value is created when labor produces more value than it receives in wages. And, in a capitalist system surplus value is appropriated by those who own the means of production and reinvested as capital to generate further surplus value. Ultimately, the phrase "surplus value" is embedded in a framework that is transactional, not emotional. In my opinion it does not communicate what Mueller had, as you describe him, which was character. The question I think you are asking is how do we re-center "character" as a quality young people want to achieve and as a question I think it's valid.
The argument that modern masculinity must be defined by a narrow template—military service, institutional loyalty, or elite credentialing—misses a fundamental truth: leadership and impact don’t come from resumes, they come from results. By that standard, Donald Trump stands as a legitimate, if unconventional, role model for millions.
Trump did not follow the traditional path. He wasn’t a career politician, a decorated general, or a lifelong bureaucrat. What he represents instead is something far more aligned with how real-world success often works—entrepreneurial risk-taking, instinctive decision-making, and the ability to operate under relentless pressure. He built a global brand, navigated multiple industries, and remained culturally and economically relevant for decades. That doesn’t happen by accident. It requires resilience, adaptability, and a level of competitive drive that most people simply don’t possess.
Critics often dismiss Trump as “brash,” but that critique says more about cultural preferences than leadership effectiveness. In reality, his communication style—sharp, direct, and often confrontational—is precisely what resonates in high-stakes environments. Whether in business negotiations or political arenas, clarity and forcefulness cut through noise. Many leaders soften their message to avoid discomfort; Trump leans into it. For supporters, that reads not as recklessness, but as authenticity.
Another overlooked dimension is independence. Trump’s career reflects a willingness to operate outside traditional systems of approval. He didn’t rely on political gatekeepers, academic institutions, or legacy networks to define his trajectory. That independence is instructive, especially for individuals who don’t fit neatly into established molds. It reinforces the idea that success is not reserved for those who follow prescribed paths—it’s available to those willing to take risks and endure criticism.
There’s also the question of relatability. While some models of masculinity emphasize restraint, hierarchy, and institutional service, Trump embodies a more modern archetype: the self-directed builder who measures success through tangible outcomes—deals closed, businesses launched, influence gained. For many men, especially those in sales, entrepreneurship, or competitive industries, this model feels far more accessible and relevant than one rooted in legacy institutions.
Importantly, leadership is not about universal approval. No effective leader—historically or today—has avoided controversy. What matters is the ability to command attention, mobilize people, and drive action. Trump has demonstrated all three at an exceptional level. His ability to dominate media cycles, energize a base, and shape national conversation is itself a form of influence that cannot be easily dismissed.
Ultimately, the debate over role models shouldn’t be about enforcing a single definition of masculinity. It should recognize that different paths produce different strengths. Figures like Robert Mueller represent one version—structured, institutional, and service-oriented. Trump represents another—entrepreneurial, disruptive, and unapologetically direct.
Both models offer lessons. But to dismiss Trump outright is to ignore a reality that many people recognize instinctively: leadership doesn’t always come polished, credentialed, or conventionally refined. Sometimes it comes loud, unconventional, and undeniably effective.
Wow what an excellent piece. Thank you @ScottGalloway - again
Good stuff brother! True masculinity is the protector of humanity…
The tragedy of his legacy is that he agreed to lead the probe into whether Donald Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election.
The Russian collusion fiasco was one of the great political frauds in U.S. history. It’s a shame Mueller’s long record of service was marred by ill-judged decisions made in this era of acrimony and confusion.
It is such a relief to read such a thoughtful, well-expressed essay in a time when my mouth seems to continually open in shock and my mind numb at the crass, callous, ignorant and consistently vulgar expressions uttered by the Commander in Chief and those who serve with him.
Truly excellent, well written and considered. Thank you!
Always enjoy your Friday comments, but particularly enjoyed those today about Robert Mueller. Well said. Keep up the good work.
One of the most profound and well written pieces by Scott G. And something worthy of sending on to my sons - #thank you ProfG
Wonderful! Thank you.
Phenomenal piece!
I watched the Inside the Manosphere documentary, and I was appalled by how shallow the movement's ideals are. What a terrible example for young men to follow.
Thanks for the honest mirror. My Dad was a smart MAN. He taught his sons to always leave the campgrounds cleaner than you found them.
Inspiring piece, thank you. Robert Mueller was so much, and djt so little.
Really interesting piece. The idea that masculinity is evolving toward connection and emotional honesty resonates.
It’s funny how this shows up in music too - even in unexpected places. Songs like Sløtface’s “For the Boys” are almost poking at those same expectations from a different angle.
Culture always seems to get there alongside the conversation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJaeOhLSYDQ&list=RDjJaeOhLSYDQ&start_radio=1
I appreciate your intent here. I would just note that "surplus value" is rhetorically implicated in Marx's critique of capitalism. Capitalism requires the creation of surplus value in order to perpetuate itself. Surplus value is created when labor produces more value than it receives in wages. And, in a capitalist system surplus value is appropriated by those who own the means of production and reinvested as capital to generate further surplus value. Ultimately, the phrase "surplus value" is embedded in a framework that is transactional, not emotional. In my opinion it does not communicate what Mueller had, as you describe him, which was character. The question I think you are asking is how do we re-center "character" as a quality young people want to achieve and as a question I think it's valid.
The argument that modern masculinity must be defined by a narrow template—military service, institutional loyalty, or elite credentialing—misses a fundamental truth: leadership and impact don’t come from resumes, they come from results. By that standard, Donald Trump stands as a legitimate, if unconventional, role model for millions.
Trump did not follow the traditional path. He wasn’t a career politician, a decorated general, or a lifelong bureaucrat. What he represents instead is something far more aligned with how real-world success often works—entrepreneurial risk-taking, instinctive decision-making, and the ability to operate under relentless pressure. He built a global brand, navigated multiple industries, and remained culturally and economically relevant for decades. That doesn’t happen by accident. It requires resilience, adaptability, and a level of competitive drive that most people simply don’t possess.
Critics often dismiss Trump as “brash,” but that critique says more about cultural preferences than leadership effectiveness. In reality, his communication style—sharp, direct, and often confrontational—is precisely what resonates in high-stakes environments. Whether in business negotiations or political arenas, clarity and forcefulness cut through noise. Many leaders soften their message to avoid discomfort; Trump leans into it. For supporters, that reads not as recklessness, but as authenticity.
Another overlooked dimension is independence. Trump’s career reflects a willingness to operate outside traditional systems of approval. He didn’t rely on political gatekeepers, academic institutions, or legacy networks to define his trajectory. That independence is instructive, especially for individuals who don’t fit neatly into established molds. It reinforces the idea that success is not reserved for those who follow prescribed paths—it’s available to those willing to take risks and endure criticism.
There’s also the question of relatability. While some models of masculinity emphasize restraint, hierarchy, and institutional service, Trump embodies a more modern archetype: the self-directed builder who measures success through tangible outcomes—deals closed, businesses launched, influence gained. For many men, especially those in sales, entrepreneurship, or competitive industries, this model feels far more accessible and relevant than one rooted in legacy institutions.
Importantly, leadership is not about universal approval. No effective leader—historically or today—has avoided controversy. What matters is the ability to command attention, mobilize people, and drive action. Trump has demonstrated all three at an exceptional level. His ability to dominate media cycles, energize a base, and shape national conversation is itself a form of influence that cannot be easily dismissed.
Ultimately, the debate over role models shouldn’t be about enforcing a single definition of masculinity. It should recognize that different paths produce different strengths. Figures like Robert Mueller represent one version—structured, institutional, and service-oriented. Trump represents another—entrepreneurial, disruptive, and unapologetically direct.
Both models offer lessons. But to dismiss Trump outright is to ignore a reality that many people recognize instinctively: leadership doesn’t always come polished, credentialed, or conventionally refined. Sometimes it comes loud, unconventional, and undeniably effective.
Beautifully written!! TY