Tag Archives: JD Vance

JD Vance Spills The Beans

Last Wednesday, I focused on two introductory paragraphs in one of Heather Cox Richardson’s daily Letters. Today, I want to revisit another paragraph from that same letter, in which Richardson quotes from a speech made by our creepy, faux “Hillbilly” Vice President.

Here’s that quote, from a 2021 interview.

“American conservatives…have lost every major powerful institution in the country, except for maybe churches and religious institutions, which of course are weaker now than they’ve ever been. We’ve lost big business. We’ve lost finance. We’ve lost the culture. We’ve lost the academy. And if we’re going to actually really effect real change in the country, it will require us completely replacing the existing ruling class with another ruling class…. I don’t think there’s sort of a compromise that we’re going to come with the people who currently actually control the country. Unless we overthrow them in some way, we’re going to keep losing.” “We really need to be really ruthless when it comes to the exercise of power,” he said.

That quote is the very essence of MAGA– the whine of White Christian males who are furious that American culture is depriving them of “ruling class” status, and who are determined to take the country back to the “good old days” when women, Black people and other “inferior” sorts knew our place.

I have previously noted that what Trump, Vance, Musk and the rest of MAGA are trying to do is inconsistent with today’s American culture–a point with which Vance rather obviously agrees. The question is: when politically powerful officials attempt to change the culture–when they embark on a project to reverse cultural changes–can they succeed?

Can this administration fulfill JD Vance’s fondest hope, and return us to the 1950s?

I doubt it, although they are certainly trying. (The recent attack on the Smithsonian Institution is a case on point, as are  efforts to erase the contributions of women and minorities from government websites, and restore Confederates names to national monuments.)

I found an excellent 2020 essay on this point, in a publication called The Minnesota Reformer. It’s worth reading in its entirety. The author suggested that in 2016, Republicans “decided to nominate the man who most loudly voiced their fears, who promised most explicitly to protect them from the cultural changes threatening them.”

Conservatives may argue that with laws such as the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, American liberals have indeed used the political system to drive cultural change, but that argument confuses cause with effect. Those laws, while historic, did not drive cultural change, they were the products of cultural changes that had already occurred. The civil rights movement of the ‘50s and early ‘60s, brought into American living rooms by the new technology of television, had made people see things differently, to think about things differently. Only after the civil rights movement changed hearts and minds, after it changed what was deemed culturally acceptable, were the laws changed to reflect that culture.

The essay argues that America’s government, with its constitutional limitations,

is not capable of producing cultural change on the scale that we are witnessing. It can slow such changes, for a while; it can adapt to them and regulate them and in the end it must reflect them, but it cannot create them. Only highly intrusive governments such as Soviet Russia, Communist China, Nazi Germany and revolutionary Iran can force such profound change.

As the writer notes later in the essay, “A government that is large enough, intrusive enough and brutal enough to tamp down cultural change in such an environment is not a government consistent with American traditions.”

JD Vance–a Yale Law “hillbilly”–clearly understands that. So do the (few) intellectuals in the MAGA movement–and so did the authors of Project 2025. Thus, the obvious conclusion: if only “highly intrusive” governments like Russia and Nazi Germany are able to force the changes they want, then America’s constitutional democracy must be replaced with such a government. Trump, Vance, Musk et al are proceeding at a furious pace with an effort to replace America’s admittedly messy and contentious liberal democracy with a fascist regime that will be capable of Vance’s desired “ruthless exercise of power.”

The author of the linked essay suggests that we may be witnessing the last stage of the culture wars, “the deciding battle of a decades-long effort by conservative Americans to enlist government as their champion against cultural changes that they have long fought against.”

Those of us who believe in the American Idea (and applaud the cultural changes consistent with it) simply cannot allow that to happen.

Comments

Do Voters Know Who They Are REALLY Voting For?

In both the federal election and in Indiana, if the individual heading up the GOP ticket gets the most votes, that individual is highly unlikely to actually serve a full term. That’s because In both cases, the “headliner” is much older than typical candidates for President and Governor, and in the case of Trump, clearly and rapidly plunging into senility and dementia.

A few days ago, Jennifer Rubin noted that reality.

Mainstream news outlets now feature stories about felon and former president Donald Trump’s “strikingly erratic, coarse and often confusing” rambling speeches, “cognitive decline,” and bizarre behavior. This evidence of mental breakdown, coupled with his event cancellations due to reports of “exhaustion” (reports his campaign has denied), give voters every reason to think that Trump could not complete a second term or would be “out of it.” Either way, his vice-presidential pick, Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), the most disliked man ever to run for vice president, would be running the show.

In essence, the most unqualified man ever to run for vice president — without a lick of executive public experience, just two years in the Senate, author of not a single piece of significant legislation, lacking any experience with foreign leaders — would be promoted. We would have a real life encounter with Peter’s Principle in the most important job on the planet. And considering the opposition from most of the “adults” from the first term, he might be relying on likely Trump Cabinet officials and advisers such as Kash Patel, Stephen K. Bannon, Richard Grenell, Elon Musk and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

As Rubin points out, Vance is far more ideological than Trump. (Let’s face it, Trump couldn’t spell ideology, let alone embrace one–his only purpose is to be noticed, to be important, and to take vengeance on his enemies.) As she says, he “blows with the wind on everything from a national abortion ban to Social Security.” Vance, on the other hand, is “enmeshed in the fever world of conspiracies,” from the anti-Semitic obsession with George Soros to the “great replacement theory” to election denial. The fact that he can spell and use words properly may make him sound saner than Trump, but his ability to articulate a coherent argument just makes him more dangerous.

MAGA Mike Braun is not as old and senile as Trump, but he’s no spring chicken. More troubling is that during the campaign, he has demonstrated absolutely no ability to rein in his White Christian Nationalist running mate–shown none of the “leadership” ability he says he’d bring to the Governor’s office.

Not only does Micah Beckwith constantly reinforce his looney-tunes faux religiosity, he–like Vance–has zero experience with, or skills required for the job he’s seeking. The Indiana Lieutenant Governor’s primary responsibilities are for agriculture and tourism. Unlike his Democratic opponent, Terry Goodin, who has ample credentials relevant to the job, Beckwith is a loose cannon culture warrior who thinks he talks to God. He’s at odds with the Constitution and rule of law and totally unfit for any public position.

Among his many “policy positions,” Beckwith equates abortion with slavery and wants to erase the already-inadequate exceptions in Indiana’s draconian ban. He has advocated shooting brown people who cross the border. He has called Jennifer McCormick–the clearly superior candidate for Governor–a “Jezebel.” He opposes same-sex marriage and gay people generally. In his one official position, on a library board, he tried to ban books. The list goes on and on.

Even if Braun is able to serve out his term, Beckwith will have a profound impact on his administration–and undoubtedly on tourism. Braun–aka “Mr. Empty Suit”–has demonstrated no ability to muzzle or redirect Beckwith, who will “represent” what it means to be a Hoosier in the eyes of many.

In a world where voters truly understood how government works and were aware of the knowledge and skills required for the positions on their ballots, the impulse to simply vote for one’s tribe might be modified by recognition of the utter unfitness of candidates like Beckwith (and Banks and Rokita). When the choices before them are limited–Americans cannot “scratch” or split their tickets for either Vice-President or Lieutenant Governor–rational voters would consider the likelihood that the secondary candidate will either be calling the shots (in the case of the federal election) or–best case scenario–simply embarrassing the state (in Indiana).

Of course, we don’t live in a world where all voters are even minimally civically-literate…..

Comments

President Vance?

Those of us who have been obsessively following the political campaigns have been struck by Trump’s increasingly precipitous mental decline.  In just the past week, he has turned in truly bizarre performances. At a rally, he stopped taking questions and stood for 39 minutes silently “dancing” to music from what was evidently a playlist; in interviews, he refused to answer questions, instead going wildly off-subject, lobbing insults and demeaning journalists at the Wall Street Journal.

With less than three weeks left until November 5th, we seem to be in a race to see whether Trump’s meltdown will be too complete–and too impossible for even MAGA to ignore– before the election, or whether America will risk the unthinkable by electing him and then waking up to the reality that we’ve really elected JD Vance.

Heather Cox Richardson has focused upon that prospect, noting that–even if Trump wasn’t so obviously losing it–he’s 78 years old. The likelihood of a senile 78-year-old serving a full term is, to be charitable, low.

Trump’s issues make it likely that a second Trump presidency would really mean a J.D. Vance presidency, even if Trump nominally remains in office.

Currently an Ohio senator, J.D. Vance is just 39, and if voters put Trump into the White House, Vance will be one of the most inexperienced vice presidents in our history. He has held an elected office for just 18 months, winning the office thanks to the backing of entrepreneur and venture capitalist Peter Thiel, who first employed Vance, then invested in his venture capital firm, and then contributed an unprecedented $15 million to his Senate campaign.

Vance and Thiel make common cause with others who are open about their determination to dismantle the federal government. Although different groups came to that mission from different places, they are sometimes collectively called a “New Right” (although at least one scholar has questioned just how new it really is). Some of the thinkers both Vance and Thiel follow, notably dystopian blogger Curtis Yarvin, argue that America’s democratic institutions have created a society that is, as James Pogue put it in a 2022 Vanity Fair article, “at once tyrannical, chaotic, and devoid of the systems of value and morality that give human life richness and meaning.” Such a system must be pulled to pieces.

Richardson described several other “tech bros” who subscribe to that world-view and support both Trump and Project 2025, which–to use academic language–“operationalizes” it. It is a worldview and a plan that JD Vance wholeheartedly endorses.

Like Thiel, Vance has spoken extensively about the need to destroy the U.S. government, but while Thiel emphasizes the potential of a technological future unencumbered by democratic baggage, Vance emphasizes what he sees as the decadence of today’s America and the need to address that decadence by purging the government of secular leaders. A 2019 convert to right-wing Catholicism, Vance said he was attracted to the religion in part because he wanted to see the Republican Party use the government to work for what he considers the common good by imposing laws that would enforce his version of morality.

Vance would continue the Right’s war on education; Richardson notes that Vance has called American universities “the enemy.” But there’s much more.

Vance wants to dismantle the secular state. He wants to replace that state with a Christian nationalism that enforces what he considers traditional values: an end to immigration—hence the lies about the legal Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio—and an end to LGBTQ+ rights. He supports abortion bans and the establishment of a patriarchy in which women function as wives and mothers even if it means staying in abusive marriages.

The available evidence suggests that MAGA folks are far less supportive of Vance than they are of Trump, despite (or perhaps due to) the fact that Vance is a far more articulate communicator of their Project 2025 worldview. I wonder how many of them will knowingly vote for a Vance presidency– assuming they are capable of recognizing that probability.

I also wonder how MAGA voters are processing Trump’s increasingly public deterioration. How are they explaining away the bizarre comments about sharks and the “great” Hannibal Lecter, and Trump’s own “beautiful body?” Do they worry about the fact that every economist–liberal or conservative–says Trump’s love-affair with tariffs would tank the economy, increase inflation and impose a huge tax on American families?

Or does their loyalty to Faux News and its clones protect them from even hearing about these things?

And most obsessively of all, I wonder how many of these fearful, angry, and irrational people are there–and how many will vote?

Comments

A Heartbeat Away

Micah Beckwith and JD Vance share a number of characteristics. Both lack governing experience. Both are lightly tethered to reality. Both are Christian Nationalists. And both are running for positions that–should they win–would put them a heartbeat away from the power to do real and lasting damage.

Since I last enumerated the statements from the SnydeReport’s “Book of Beckwith,” that running list of Beckwith’s wack-a-doodle statements has grown. Among the recent additions: Beckwith has compared vaccinations to “what the Nazis did to the Jews,” and says vaccine mandates are “paramount to rape.” He’s provided “3 reasons why you should be a “Christian Nationalist” and insisted that the fact that Fishers (an Indianapolis bedroom community) had allowed a Pride parade proves his contention that the community has long been guilty of “sex grooming.”  Here’s the quote:

Sexually grooming children has been a part of the Fishers culture for a long time. From what’s happening in the Library to the schools and now this. It’s unfortunately par for the course.

If you think JD Vance is less of a looney, allow me to refer you to a recent column by E.J. Dionne in the Washington Post. (For those of you unfamiliar with Dionne, you should know that he is a deeply religious person, not a critic of religiosity.) His observations about Vance were part of a column suggesting ways that Kamala Harris might bring Americans together to support families and children.

Rather unintentionally, JD Vance has created an opportunity for her to do this. Trump’s running mate is the perfect foil for Harris to show that being pro-family and pro-children requires bringing our warring political tribes together.

Vance has had quite a time of it, trying to explain away his misogynistic language. It’s not just his comments about “childless cat ladies” or his claim that teachers who don’t have kids of their own are a problem for education. (That one took this student of the Sisters of St. Joseph and Benedictine monks aback.) Especially revealing was his dismissal of “women who think that, truly, the liberationist path is to spend 90 hours a week working in a cubicle at McKinsey instead of starting a family and having children.”

He later added: “They’re all fundamentally atheist or agnostic. They have no real value system.” With God out of the picture, they seek meaning in movements for “racial or gender equity.”

I won’t even mention Vance’s assertions that immigrants from Haiti are eating their neighbors’ cats and dogs…..

Most folks who are politically active agree with Mike Braun when he dismisses his running-mate’s bizarre and deeply unpopular opinions by pointing out that voters don’t base their votes on who’s running for Lieutenant Governor. Candidates for Vice-President almost never matter either.

In this particular election, however, voters should rethink their importance.

I’m not the only person noting that MAGA Mike Braun is 70, and that– while he seems healthy– actuarial tables suggest the odds of “something happening” aren’t insignificant. Having a culture warrior Lieutenant Governor who knows little or nothing about agriculture or tourism–the tasks assigned to the office–is troubling enough. The thought of a Governor Beckwith who might have to deal with a public health crisis or uphold the Constitutional separation of church and state is another matter entirely.

At least Braun seems currently healthy. The odds favoring JD Vance’s ascension to the Presidency in the event Trump wins are much, much higher. Trump’s mental and physical deterioration has become too obvious to ignore, even by our “sane washing” media. Granted, he has always displayed significant signs of mental incapacity, but it has gotten steadily worse. As one Facebook meme notes, if your grandpa “went off” on sharks and electric cars and Hannibal Lecter, you’d take him in for evaluation. You certainly wouldn’t put him in charge of anything.

Furthermore, if Braun’s age of 70 is a legitimate concern, what can we say about Trump, who is 78–an age when even sane people begin to decline.  The odds of Trump making it through a four year term without dying (or hiding under a desk babbling nonsense) are miniscule. America would then get President Vance, whose weirdness has been on continual display and whose entire experience with government has been 18 months as a Senator.

Neither Beckwith nor Vance could be elected to those posts, but both would have better-than-even odds of ascending to them.

In a normal year, with two normal political parties and second-tier candidates with normal qualifications, we’d be justified in ignoring those odds. This year, we aren’t.

Comments

Family Values

What are “family values?”

To hear Republicans describe them, family values are a traditional, a backward-facing insistence on sexual “purity” (for women) and heterosexuality: mom in the home watching the children (no pre-school or day care), gays in the closet, no access to abortion. Occasionally, there will be a nod to the importance of dad’s fidelity, but that gets awkward these days, given GOP allegiance to a male sexual predator.

Democratic policies illustrate a very different approach to valuing families.

For one thing, Democrats emphasize job creation, so that families can adequately care for the children they may–or may not–choose to have. (On that score, the GOP’s performance has been dismal: during the DNC, Bill Clinton noted that, since 1989, America has created about 51 million new jobs. Fifty million were created during Democratic administrations, one million under Republicans. This jaw-dropping statistic turned out to be true, albeit slightly misleading.)

Even if you discount the importance of a robust economy to the health of the American family, a glance at the policies pursued by the parties confirms that Democrats are far more family-friendly. Nicholas Kristof recently made that case. Calling Republican efforts to paint themselves as the “pro-family” party “chutzpah,” Kristof wrote

Children are more likely to be poor, to die young and to drop out of high school in red states than in blue states. The states with the highest divorce rates are mostly Republican, and with some exceptions like Utah, it’s in red states that babies are more likely to be born to unmarried mothers (partly because of lack of access to reliable contraception).

One of President Biden’s greatest achievements was to cut the child poverty rate by almost half, largely with the refundable child tax credit. Then Republicans killed the program, sending child poverty soaring again.

Can anything be more anti-child?

Well, maybe our firearms policy is. Guns are the leading cause of death for American children and teenagers, largely because of Republican intransigence and refusal to pass meaningful gun safety laws.

It’s because of the G.O.P. that the United States is one of only a few countries in the world without guaranteed paid maternity leave. Republicans fought universal health care and resisted the expansion of Medicaid; that’s one reason a child in the United States is three times as likely to die by the age of 5 as a child in, say, Slovenia or Estonia.

Kristof also noted several of the anti-child policies advanced in Project 2025, including ending Head Start–which has been a lifeline for low-income children– and dismantling the Department of Education.

Banning abortion and requiring women to give birth whether or not they can afford to feed and clothe a child is hardly “pro family”– even ignoring the fact that when women with dangerous pregnancies cannot access adequate care, they often die, leaving existing children motherless. And Republican extremism on abortion and birth control has led to obstacles to in vitro fertilization–for some families, the only avenue to producing those children Republicans want women to keep turning out.

Kristof also recognized the importance of the economy in supporting families. If marriage rates are important–and he agrees that they are–the evidence of economic influence is compelling.

Union membership among men raises their marriage rates, for example, apparently because they then earn more money and become more stable and appealing as partners. But Republicans have worked for decades to undermine unions.

And while marriage is important, so is access to divorce. Before easy access to divorce, large numbers of women were trapped in violent marriages that terrorized them and their children. (JD Vance is on record counseling women to remain in such marriages.) As Kristof notes,

One careful study by the economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers found that the introduction of no-fault divorce in America was associated with about a 20 percent reduction in female suicides, at least a 25 percent reduction in wife-beating and an apparent decline in husbands murdering wives.

Which raises the question: can an anti-women party be pro family values?

In this policy arena–as in so many others–the fundamental difference between today’s GOP and the Democratic Party really does get back to dramatic differences in values. That’s why calls to “bridge our differences” and “achieve compromise” ring so hollow. If the debate is about the best way to achieve result X–say, feeding hungry children–then we can absolutely come to some sort of mutual agreement. But when one party wants to feed children and the other party doesn’t, compromise isn’t likely. 

Americans aren’t divided over policy; we are divided over values–and not just family values.

 
Comments