To elaborate on this while women have largely been liberated from gender roles men are still mostly valued for their ability to generate money, stuck in the traditional role of protector or provider. So when economic problems start destroying peoples ability to make a living and support a spouse it falls heaviest on men. They feel like failures, and many women resent their partners because of their inability to generate sufficient income.
This means that for men, all other political issues are subservient to economics. Women aren't in the same pickle as they have innate value to society and aren't judged by what they can produce, so they care about more specific issues like abortion. What this means is that as the interest of men and women diverge that stratification is seen in partisan alliances. It's actually ironic then that woman are largely driving this rightward shift, as they want financially stable partners where men must compete for female approval.
In an economy where good jobs are more and more competitive, and basics such as shelter and food are unaffordable for more than half of Americans, it forces men to use politics to achieve their economic aims. Taken to its logical conclusion if the political avenue fails to remedy the situation force becomes the only viable solution, this is how revolutions start unfortunately - large groups of disaffected, impoverished and desperate men with no hope for the future and nothing to lose tend to gamble with their lives for a potentially better tomorrow.