"Fans of a thoughtful, conservative-populist coalition should hope he runs and wins. Vance, whom I’ve known and liked since we met in 2015, would not be a normal Senate candidate. Only 36 years old, he has never run for office and has not worked his way up the political chain.... His heartbreaking autobiography tells the story of his Appalachian-descended family. The Middletown, Ohio, community in which they lived spiraled downward under the pressures of globalization and community decline. His story became the go-to source for many to explain the burgeoning Trump phenomenon in 2016. Vance’s story, therefore, is the story of the prototypical Trump backer: White, working-class and desperate for a restoration of the decent, moderately prosperous communities they once knew.... His 2019 talk at the National Conservatism conference, entitled 'Getting Beyond Libertarianism,' was a masterful critique of the economic and moral depths to which unbridled free-market fundamentalism leads.... Ohio is the perfect place to nurture the thoughtful conservative populism Vance backs.... Two big-name competitors, former state treasurer Josh Mandel and former Ohio GOP chair Jane Timken... pledge fealty to Trump and will be quick to attack Vance for his 2016-era doubts about the former president, although Trump’s performance in office led Vance to back him for reelection."
Writes Henry Olsen (at WaPo).
Posts
69 comments:
Only 36 years old, he has never run for office and has not worked his way up the political chain....
How old was Kamala when she worked her way up the political chain? She is the poster girl of how to advance in Dem politics. She is a reason why I am disgusted with Dem politics.
This sounds interesting. J.D. Vance has an impressive real-world resumé. His lack of political experience is IMHO likely to be an advantage. GOP needs rebuilding; he can help do it.
Lacking political experience makes him more like Trump, but the columnist won't say that. He's supposed to be different from Trump.
Perhaps Vance can author some good legislation.
I haven't heard it or read it, but I am interested in his "Getting Beyond Libertarianism". The Republicans need to moderate their economic policies that so that the economy can work for more people, which may require not adhering to pure libertarian ideas for the economy. If Republicans adopt some 90's style ideas from centrist Democrats it could help win over lots of people. When it comes down to it people would much rather have a fair opportunity to earn a decent living rather than be given something from the Government.
He would appeal to a lot of traditional democrats, which is a key requirement for the new populist GOP.
My extended family book club - full of teachers and and Oprah lovers - read his book a few years ago so that they could understand Trump voters. Of course, "Hillbilly Elegy" doesn't begin to explain what is now portrayed as Trumpism (ala Marjorie Taylor Greene, etc) but reading it made them feel good about themselves. And, they would consider voting for Vance - if he was running as a Democrat.
Well, I am a fan of "a thoughtful, conservative-populist coalition," but I am not sure how much I hope he runs and wins. Mickey Kau, with whom I agree on a number of issues, s has referred to Vance his "dream candidate" for president."
My view on J.D. Vance is similar to that identified in Jim Goad's review of Hillbilly Elegy:
"Vance’s chief heresy was to portray Appalachia’s feral hillbillies—those blood-crazed subhuman river rats from Deliverance who’ve served as cultural and cinematic arch-villains for generations now—as human. It should tell you something about how far-gone American cultural discourse is that merely portraying common middle American human beings as human is considered radical.
Unfortunately, that’s about as radical as it gets. Although Vance often speaks with fondness of the gun-toting, foul-mouthed, ill-tempered, drug-addled crackers in his grandparents’ home base of Breathitt County, KY, he ends up placing most of their problems squarely at their own bunion-covered feet. Their problems can’t be genetic, he argues, because both he and his sister were able to crawl up from the meth-stained squalor and make something of themselves. Their problems can’t be blamed on the government for reasons he never quite explains beyond suggesting that people who blame the government for any of their problems are dodging the fact that everything is basically their own fault. So although he concedes that the oft-maligned rubes from flyover country are human, he concludes that for the most part, they are bad humans."
I think Goad's own 1998 book The Redneck Manifesto: How Hillbillies, Hicks, and White Trash Became America’s Scapegoats is a more incisive critique than Vance's memoir-laden Elegy.
And, they would consider voting for Vance - if he was running as a Democrat.
He would be destroyed by the Dem machine if he tried to run as a Dem -- wrong gender & race.
"How old was Kamala when she worked her way up the political chain? She is the poster girl of how to advance in Dem politics. She is a reason why I am disgusted with Dem politics."
I think Kamala poled very well before she had to put name on a ballot at the polls.
The idea that globalism is about "unbridled free-market fundamentalism" is tenuous at best.
Olsen also confuses "fealty to Trump" with Trump and his voters insisting that their elected representatives actually honor their promises to the voters who elected them based on Trump issues.
It has little to do with "fealty" to a man, Trump.
It's about finding people with the strength and heart willing to fight for those values once elected, once tested by the establishment.
Vance presumably fits that mold as good as any politician in Trump's eyes.
I see the Democrats in the media are working hard to win that Ohio race. I am guessing Vance is the stalking horse the media builds up for the Republican primary. Not saying Vance is a bad candidate for the Republicans to run on the ticket- this media attention reminds me greatly of what the media did for Trump in 2015 and 2016 before it became clear he was actually going to win the Republican nomination. I think what is happening is that the media is going to build up Vance in the belief that he can't win the nomination in Ohio (my belief, too), and then try to push him as a third party candidate.
Blogger Wince said...
Olsen also confuses "fealty to Trump" with Trump and his voters insisting that their elected representatives actually honor their promises to the voters who elected them based on Trump issues.
Trump was the hardest working politician I can think of in recent history. They ran partially on a slogan of "Promises made, Promises kept". But I suppose it was more to me "Promises made, next best alternative provided." There was no wall paid for by Mexico, but you can't fault him for not trying. And he did work out something that seemed to be working well with his deal with Mexico. I can't remember a politician who was as earnest as Trump. That is the mindset Republicans need to adopt. Fight like tooth and nail to get the goals accomplished and if it isn't going to work find an acceptable alternative. Trump's mentality in that regard isn't that uncommon in Real Estate.
Yancey Ward wrote: I think Kamala poled very well before she had to put name on a ballot at the polls.
Well that was her debut. I think she advanced so quickly because a certain ex-President -- the same one people name as a paragon of martial virtue--thought (and said) she was hot.
Their problems can’t be genetic, he argues, because both he and his sister were able to crawl up from the meth-stained squalor and make something of themselves.
This is why the SAT was invented. The potential is there in their genes, not necessarily the same potential the self destructive have squandered but objective testing can find it, which is of course why the left is determined to destroy objective testing.
If Vance becomes a candidate, how quickly will oppo researchers dig up that mean thing he said and/or did to women and/or minorities?
As an actual hillbilly, I kind of question his credentials in this regard.
"If Vance becomes a candidate, how quickly will oppo researchers dig up that mean thing he said and/or did to women and/or minorities?"
Oh, I promise you that if WaPoo is pushing his candidacy, they have already done the oppo research and are holding it in reserve.
@Yancey Ward: Speaking chemist to chemist, are you as hillbilly as Bob Grubbs is?
"If Vance becomes a candidate, how quickly will oppo researchers dig up that mean thing he said and/or did to women and/or minorities?"
He voted for Evan McMullin in 2016. That's all the oppo research I need.
"Oh, I promise you that if WaPoo is pushing his candidacy, they have already done the oppo research and are holding it in reserve."
Why bother, when all they have to make it up when the time comes?
Oh, yes, chickelit. I was born in Chicago, but both of my parents are from Pike County, Kentucky on the West Virginia border- they had moved to Chicago after they were married, but moved back to Pike County when I was three. I was raised there and went to college there.
Interesting coincidence you mention Bob Grubbs, though- my reseach advisor at Northwestern did his post-doctoral work under Grubbs at Cal Tech. He used to tease gently me about my hillbilly background, always asking me how far away I grew up from Possum Trot. I never bothered pointing out to him that Possum Trot is out there near Paducah. I think the name "Possum Trot" just sounds hillbillyish.
Wince: The idea that globalism is about "unbridled free-market fundamentalism" is tenuous at best.
That Vance thinks the Republican Party has gotten anywhere near "free market fundamentalism" reflects his lack of political experience and his ignorance of economics, Maybe a senate seat would help. Maybe it wouldn't. If I were a Buckeye, I'd be pretty wary, precisely because what the government needs is not another Obama who people project whatever they want onto because he wrote an autobiography offering himself up as spokesperson for some target group.
"pledge fealty to Trump"
What does that mean?
Has anyone ever met a "free market fundamentalist"?
Maybe Althouse, when the mean libertarians made her cry.
'Getting Beyond Libertarianism,' was a masterful critique of the economic and moral depths to which unbridled free-market fundamentalism leads..
It's amazing people insist our system is "unbridled free-market fundamentalism". In reality our government controls whatever they want to, including mandating that specific businesses they hate pay labor premiums over businesses they prefer. We just watched government close businesses across the country so they would look like they're doing something.
"Hero Pay
I'd like to hear what Vance supports but I suspect it's no different from the current progs: give taxpayer money to people who vote for us. There are no easy answers.
Vance is an interesting guy; and I doubt that he's anybody's man but hisown. I think the Marine Corps made him what he is--I know that's an unpopular thought, but it is what it is. He got a good foundation; then on to Ohio State where he hurried through undergrad school. Off to Yale Law school where some Hillary ?Rodham clone sneered, "What are you doing here you peckerwood" or implicit words to that effect.
It would be nice if he ran as a Republican; but he could also run as a Democrat where he'd bee about as independent as a hog on ice. He's not going to swallow Chuck You's swill; otoh he's not going to be led around by Mitch McConnell. This is one of those candidates where the electorate tosses a grenade in the political punchbowl. Don't know who he's going to splash worst.
If you want an author who came from humble beginnings, I would suggest Homer Hickam, but he is too old.
Too bad. He might be a better Senator than Vance.
'Fealty.'
Great word.
Is that what Kamala was doing all these years to get ahead...pledging fealty?
Is that a category in PornHub?
The idea that globalism is about "unbridled free-market fundamentalism" is tenuous at best.
That Vance thinks the Republican Party has gotten anywhere near "free market fundamentalism" reflects his lack of political experience and his ignorance of economics,
I agree that "unbridled free-market fundamentalism" is an inaccurate description of the global economy system. Nonetheless, there is a kind of market fundamentalism prevalent within the Republican Party demonstrated by individuals like Goldwater and Reagan. When Reagan addressed CPAC in 1981, Reagan identified this tradition with "Russell Kirk, Friedrich Hayek, Henry Hazlitt, Milton Friedman, James Burnham, Ludwig von Mises," Frank Meyer and the National Review. He summarized it as "a new economic prosperity based on reducing government interference in the marketplace."
A belief in this kind of market fundamentalism was used to justify tax reductions, cuts to discretionary spending, deregulation of capital markets, trade liberalization, and privatization.
Btw, if Thiel ever ran for CA guv or any other political job I would certainly kick his tires...
I expect the push to get Vance to run is because the elite see him as someone who can translate the rest of American to them. They, both right and left, have lost the plot when it comes to the rest of the country.
Somebody who was nervous about Trump in 2016, but kept an open mind and came around when they saw Trump's success sounds like the right mindset.
I like Vance but he’s so soft-spoken ... he seems to lack fire.
Free market fundamentalists back single/central/monopolistic solutions (e.g. Obamacares), [catastrophic] [anthropogenic] immigration reform (e.g. illegal immigration, democratic gerrymandering, open borders), insourcing/outsourcing, foreign student academics and tuition, labor and environmental arbitrage, and reproductive rites to keep women appointed, available, and taxable.
A belief in this kind of market fundamentalism was used to justify tax reductions, cuts to discretionary spending, deregulation of capital markets, trade liberalization, and privatization.
Sounds good to me.
J. Farmer said...My view on J.D. Vance is similar to that identified in Jim Goad's review of Hillbilly Elegy:
Last time hillbilly elegy came up here, someone suggested night comes to the cumberlands, which I'm working my way through right now. There's no one culprit; instead everything and everyone conspired to destroy that part of the country--the government, the corporations, and the people themselves. They all did it.
Farmer said Nonetheless, there is a kind of market fundamentalism prevalent within the Republican Party demonstrated by individuals like Goldwater and Reagan.
Of course, that was forty-plus years ago. Not sure too many of those prominent on the R side adhere to that now (or have since at least Bush the Younger).
Based on limited information: best thing that could happen to the GOP.
Newsbof GOP (white guy) newcomer Vance generates some interesting comments, but misogynists can't resist irrelevant slurs of the VP. The California native first tried local elective office at 39 in the department in which she had been working much of her legal career. She won 3 different offices, 2 statewide, before seeking the 2020 Presidential nomination. I happily voted for her every time I had the chance (7 times) (not 2020 primary, she had dropped out).
Ten million dollars to 'entice' someone to run for an open Senate seat? That's just a money-laundering operation.
@tommyesq:
Of course, that was forty-plus years ago. Not sure too many of those prominent on the R side adhere to that now (or have since at least Bush the Younger).
The Tea Party? Mitt Romney? Paul Ryan? Ted Cruz? Tom Cotton?
Readering ignores and probably denies how Kamala Harris got her start in politics. Harris is relevant to this discussion because we are talking about how people get their starts in politics.
And readering, for very time you voted for Harris in CA, I voted against her, so we cancelled each other out. But you go right ahead and keep championing Harris's steller career which is entirely based on merit.
Maybe Kasich will run as a Democrat. His dad was a mailman.
@temujin:
Sounds good to me.
In that case, you should be for the free movement of people, goods, and capital. The market liberalization of the last several decades has resulted in the creation of an ultra-wealthy elite class that totally dominates the institutions of society.
The California native first tried local elective office at 39 in the department in which she had been working much of her legal career.
That was after Willie Brown appointed her to several offices.
Agree, this is a huge negative...
> He voted for Evan McMullin in 2016. That's all the oppo research I need.
"Readering ignores and probably denies how Kamala Harris got her start in politics."
It's not hard to understand why. The last thing any Dem supporter wants to talk about is how Kammie got ahead in politics.
I finished Hillbilly Elegy last week. It's a fine book (the movie not so much -- I turned it off after 5 minutes). Vance is obviously very smart; to get into Yale Law, much less through it, with his background is very impressive. Perhaps the smartest thing he did, as described in the book, was to enlist in the Marines after high school. Of course, what I know about Vance is based on what he tells me about himself in his book. I thought that people who voted for Obama based on how he was described in "his" memoirs were fools. So I won't be a fool. And don't you be either. But if you live in Ohio (I don't) watch him, listen to him; he could be the real deal.
Damn those free-market fundamentalists! If not for statism, how are people legally going to force the rest of us to do what they want? I look forward to Vance's syllogism-by-syllogism refutation of HUMAN ACTION.
Remember how Harris utterly failed in New Hampshire -- I mean totally bombed? So instead of sending Harris to charm school to at least begin to get her to not loathe and resent half of America, what are the Dems going to do? They are going to get rid of the New Hampshire primary tradition for being "too white." Is that really how to get more hearts and minds?
Trump would clearly have to have been harder working than Biden is, but I wouldn't say he was the hardest working politician or president in recent years. Jimmy Carter was excessively-detail oriented and achieved nothing. JFK spent hours rehearsing for press conferences that he might just as well not have held. Nixon spent an enormous amount of time on policy and politics.
It was more a matter of having goals and wanting to see them through. Other politicians have put a lot more work and effort into all the details of politics and administration without necessarily having worthy goals or achieving them. Trump did well there. He wasn't swayed by talk of what presidents are supposed to do or how little they are supposed to be contented with having achieved, but if he spent as much time on the details of his campaigns as Lyndon Johnson or Bill Clinton did, he would likely still be president today.
Laissez-faire is over, if it was ever really around. There will always be some role for government. The question is how much. You can believe that free markets usually deliver the goods without going in for marketolatry. I wouldn't vote for somebody who didn't have serious reservations about Rand and Mises. You don't want to be or sound like a cultist, and some Republicans and conservatives haven't been able to help themselves.
Appalachia was a big issue for the Democrats in the 1960s. It was dropped pretty quickly after RFK and LBJ left the scene. McGovern apparently wasn't interested. "Throwing money at problems" and encouraging welfare dependency didn't do the region any good. It was like the country and its political class stopped being interested in job creation.
All This Marvelous Potential: Robert Kennedy's 1968 Tour of Appalachia came out last year and may or may not be worth reading.
"Newsbof GOP (white guy) newcomer Vance generates some interesting comments, but misogynists can't resist irrelevant slurs of the VP."
Was she or was she not Willie Brown's mistress while he was still married. Did he, or did he not help her get her political career started. This isn't conjecture, Readering, these are reported facts. So, it isn't slur at all- it is the crime of noticing reality.
"Maybe Kasich will run as a Democrat. His dad was a mailman."
If Kasich switched to a Dem and debated Joe it would go something like this:
Mailman!
Scranton!
Mailman!
Scranton!
It is a slur, especially in a completedly unrelated story.
Harris also mocks the the notion of being a female role model for young women to emulate,
is she really?
What feminist claptrap (pun intended).
Democrats are going to crap all over Iowa and NH and take away their primaries, crap on your old friends to impress your new friends,
I wouldn't have brought up Kamala on this thread, but if you're in politics everything you do is fair game. People are going to talk about your life choices, and if they do so without using dirty words you are already ahead of the game.
If one wants to play "What about Trump?" all the time, others will want to play "What about Joe?" or "What about Kamala"? We got Biden/Harris because the country always wanted to talk about Trump and never seriously look at Biden or Harris.
Maybe we got Trump because enough voters focused on Hillary's faults and not his own, but we got four years of complaining about Trump's faults as payback. This is the Biden/Harris era, so, like it or not, we will get a few years of people pointing out their faults. It's not all still just going to be about how bad Trump was.
Maybe we got Trump because enough voters focused on Hillary's faults and not his own, but we got four years of complaining about Trump's faults as payback. This is the Biden/Harris era, so, like it or not, we will get a few years of people pointing out their faults. It's not all still just going to be about how bad Trump was.
I'm going to disagree with you, lurker. Back in 2016, we had a whole slew of Republican candidates which Trump took on. The Democrats had Hillary who felt entitled to the predicencey, and then there was Bernie Sanders. Sanders was the populist upstart. Sanders was destroyed by the DNC machine. Hially was not in a any sense the popular choice of democrats, whereas Trump was the popular choice of Republicans. Trump opposed the RNC machine and prevailed; Hillary was the DNC machine and she prevailed. That's how I read the 2016 election. YMMV
I wish Thiel would put his fortune into more fruitful things than politicians, like independent media and culture. Remember what Andrew Breitbart said, politics is downstream from culture.
He voted for Evan McMullin in 2016. That's all the oppo research I need.
Yup. He writes with humanity, but his political instincts are shit. He's well positioned to patronize people, is his angle.
Lurker, I'd love to read your refutation of Mises' HUMAN ACTION.
"This is the Biden/Harris era, so, like it or not, we will get a few years of people pointing out their faults."
It didn't work that way with Obama/Biden. We jumped from Bush/Cheney fault-pointing-out straight to Trump with an added dose of impeachment, and hardly a mention of even the possibility of the slightest flaw in The Lightbringer and his trusty sidekick, Scranton Joe.
Ah, poor Readering being hurt by us pointing out Harris slept her way up the political ladder. That is hilarious, Readering. Now go fuck yourself.
"a masterful critique of the economic and moral depths to which unbridled free-market fundamentalism leads"
Free-market fundamentalism? Wow. When have we had that? Certainly not since Wickard vs Filburn, and I would argue not very frequently even before that dastardly decision.
'Free-market fundamentalism.' What a telling concoction: it combines two things lefties hate: freedom and orthodox Christianity.
We have a massive welfare state, we have marginal tax rates that run over 50% combined federal and state in some jurisdictions, we have government control of the entire healthcare financing system, and by the time Biden's Bumblers have had four years to screw things up the government will be telling everybody what kind of car they have to drive (GREEN!) what sort of school their kids must attend (DIVERSE!) who must be hired, fired, promoted, accepted or rejected (EQUITY!)
Somebody point me in the direction of this imagined libertarian dystopia. I want to move there as quickly as possible.
"When Reagan addressed CPAC in 1981, Reagan identified this tradition with "Russell Kirk, Friedrich Hayek, Henry Hazlitt, Milton Friedman, James Burnham, Ludwig von Mises," Frank Meyer and the National Review. He summarized it as "a new economic prosperity based on reducing government interference in the marketplace."
A belief in this kind of market fundamentalism was used to justify tax reductions, cuts to discretionary spending, deregulation of capital markets, trade liberalization, and privatization."
And in an interesting twist, what did we get? A new economic prosperity. Who'd have thunk it?
Readering says "I happily voted for her" (K Harris) "every time I had the chance (7 times).” There are some reasons (other than insanity) one might do such s thing: (1) Addiction; (2) Seeking inclusion in the Guinness Book of World Records; and, (3) Personal vendetta against Mrs. Willie Brown.
@ Readering - the comparison was a young Republican rising to prominence versus the most notable recent young Democrat to do so. It is not in the least irrelevant, it should be an automatic comparison. You just don't like uncomfortable facts being brought up. She may have some skills and competencies beyond railroading black men into prison, but her career was aided by Willie Brown, whom she had previously slept with. If Democrats want to shrug that off in nominating her, they can ignore it all they want. Voters are not obligated to.
Here's a pro tip which I have offered before: simply being condescending and disdainful without offering much in the way of logical argument only works on those liberals who need to be socially disciplined back into the proper beliefs. Conservatives are pretty much immune. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, we don't actually think late-night comedians have been all that successful in refuting us, despite the progressive opinion that we have been dealt repeated devastating blows from which we should be unable to recover.
Up your game, dude.
Asst Village Idiot is spot on.
Most conservatives leave the late night TV viewing to libgressives. We prefer to spend that time on a work-related project, on preparing for the next day’s interactions, seeing what’s happened in our industry since last night, etc. Or, even “family time”. The libgressives in our circle of friends and colleagues will brief us anyway on what brilliance we missed on TV. And we don’t have to sit or fast-forward through ads
Post a Comment