Just as Trump is a poor person’s idea of what a rich person is supposed to be, Vance is the ignorant person’s idea is what a smart conservative is supposed to be. Yet, as Hanania points out, Vance doesn’t actually appear to be that smart. My impression is that Vance’s odd pseudo-intellectualism is the result of grafting a Yale Law School Degree onto what appears to have been a very mediocre high school and college education. Vance may actually be fairly high IQ but he never had to work or think very hard to succeed relative to his mediocre peers. At Yale he had to suddenly shift into high gear intellectually without having really mastered the basics. He’s like a musician who has memorized some impressive technical pieces but doesn’t really know how harmony works.
I disagree. There is a unitary theory behind what Vance is doing, motivations aside. The idea of Postliberalism and "common good" economics has been a long festering movement, focused on state sponsored unionship to ostensibly restore the one breadwinner union worker family. Postliberals think this arrangement builds the best character forming families and think the goal of Christianity is to build (Christian) character.
It's basically what we have always called "left-wing," but for someone reason because GOP was associated with some vaguely capitalist-sounding people we call them "right-wing" even as they spout the most ridiculous central planning nonsense.
The issue is with the incompetence of our political intellectuals. Vance is just cashing in on this. Politicians can't win office without giving the public what they want.
Excellent analysis. To state it more precisely: most politicians have some awareness of their own motivations and feel a lingering sense of guilt or attachment to those original incentives when trying to convince the public of their moral highmindness. It hobbles their effectiveness on the public stage: sometimes you can see their eyes shift as they try to switch between the public and private modes. JD's eyes never shift.
In JD, the connection between motivation and rationalization is completely severed: his instincts identify the direction in which it would be politically useful for him to go, but when explaining that decision, his conscious mind starts from a clean slate. He's like a patient in the famous sectioned corpus callosum studies: he keeps waking up in strange circumstances -- running for a Senate seat in Ohio, endorsing a man he once compared to Hitler -- and has to figure out the explanation from first principles, with one of those principles being the Triversian assumption that he's simply trying to do good in the world. I can't stop watching his interviews because no one else has quite his combination of off-the-charts IQ, total moral conviction, and total dissociation from his motivational center.
"No economist is ever cited for espousing the view that maximizing GDP is all that matters, or that the concept measures everything of value in the world, because no economist takes these positions."
No, but that is the motte. We see the bailey when they argue in favor of enacting particular policies--such as very large scale immigration--on the basis of the argument that it will maximize GDP, as if there were no other consideratons.
Telling the truth about little things isn't a virtue, it's simply easier to tell the truth when you have no reason to invent lies. He probably thinks his story about the psalms is cute and wholesome and demonstrates what a good faithful guy he is. His Catholic faith is also likely a farce, look at how he treats the pope. There's nothing genuine about him.
I don't know what is going on in Vance’s head, but I do know that I won’t find out by reading this book, so I’ll pass.
But on your economics points, you are mistaken. I don't have time to write a treatise in the comments section, but I will say that there is *substantial* evidence that both mass migration and one-sided free trade have done significant damage to the American worker. Those aren’t the only problems, obviously, given that vast money printing looms large as a cause of economic dislocation, but if you ever want to discuss your Wikipedia-quality assertions about economics, I’m up for it.
A hedge fund executive quoted in The Atlantic a few years ago said, “If the transformation of the world economy lifts four people in China and India out of poverty and into the middle class, and meanwhile [that] means one American drops out of the middle class, that’s not such a bad trade.”
The scenario above is what actually happened starting around 2000, and it is what I strongly object to. That right there is the point of any discussion. For all his flaws, Vance understands this point better than anyone on the political stage right now. Which automatically makes him my current favorite politician.
That’s an interesting question, and I suppose you can argue it both ways, depending on your values. Clearly, the US has experienced economic growth and increases in GDP per capita since 2000; however, gains in the average don't mean gains for everyone. The benefits of lower prices accrue to everyone, but the costs of these lower prices (in lost careers due to offshoring and higher rental costs due to mass migration) hit the lower end of the socio-economic scale most harshly. Generally speaking, in a free economy, real wages should track productivity, but these two measures have been disconnected since the mid-70s. I don't want to minimize the disastrous effects of government overspending, and the resulting enormous inflation has caused the American worker — clearly, these are the primary causes of suffering. But adding offshoring and mass migration to the crushing inflation has taken a bad but manageable situation and made it catastrophic for large swaths of the native population, which you can see in the enormous increase in disability claims (older workers laid off, underwater on their mortgages, and thus unable to move), increases in drug (pot/opioid) use among natives, and a consistently high rate of suicide among older white men. None of these "consequences of hopelessness" were occurring at this high a rate before globalization.
I don't know you, but I’m 63, struggling to save enough for a retirement that may never come, and I’m positively *wealthy* compared to many working-class people. If I were fired tomorrow, it would be a catastrophe, as it’s very difficult for someone my age (really, anyone 50 or older) to break into a new profession. Imagine going from a good job as a skilled worker making $100K/yr to only being able to get a $20K/yr job as a Walmart greeter. Imagine what that does to a person psychologically. Now imagine being terminated and forced to train your replacement- an H-1 B Indian who has no connection to the country or community--how would you react to this? Honestly, given how often this occurs, I’m surprised there hasn’t been a revolution in the US. And, of course, if it isn’t stopped, there will be a revolution. As I wrote above, the attitude of our leaders is indifference to whether American workers drop out of the middle class, as long as Chinese and Indians go into the middle class, and they themselves (the leaders) get rich. No, thank you.
Who is ‘the American worker’? I don’t think this person can be defined. I’m interested to know your definition so I can understand the context of your assertions. Thanks.
What I mean by “American worker” is people who, unlike Richard and me, actually make something for a living. Or repair something, or do something other than provide services. Though now that I think about it, the low-end service industry (think hairdressers, landscapers, or retail clerks) has been devastating for native Americans, especially American youth, due to mass migration, as the migrants lowball native Americans out of these jobs.
The societal and economic effects of offshoring manufacturing and mass migration (there are devastating cultural, fiscal, and criminal effects too) include lower prices for everyone (due to the undercutting of native labor), but large numbers of people at the lower end are driven out of the workforce. I have driven around much of the United States, and the hollowing out of small towns, which I’ve seen all over the country, though mostly in the Northeast, is a crime against humanity.
And the whole thing is based on a flawed understanding of the Law of Comparative Advantage, as articulated by David Ricardo. Even Ricardo didn’t write what the Wikipedia-level intellects behind free trade and open borders said he wrote, yet they are in charge of our economic and immigration policies.
Aren't all politicians fake? They have to appear to be "moderate" to get elected (well, in most districts) but have to make sure graft flows to keep donors happy. Look at the history of John Cornyn: he carried water for every donor group on the face of the earth.
I do not even begin to understand what Vance thinks he has demonstrated about GDP. It is as if he is saying something like “Sure, your car has a speedometer — but that speedometer will tell you nothing whatsoever about your MPG or the best radio station to listen to!” Surely everyone knows that speedometers have great value in many contexts and no value in others.
‘And if you remove the political ambition that leads to taking absurd positions and telling himself false stories while deceiving himself about what is going on, I think one could say that Vance is in fact a good person.’
What is the purpose of this statement? Is it sarcasm? - because it sure sounds like it. Strange way to end the essay. Maybe I am reading it too literally.
One person's take, so make of it what you will, but after following Richard for the about a year now, I really think it's best to read him as someone who doesn't really do sarcasm or write in a self-consciously ironic way. For better or worse, I think he typically means precisely what he writes.
Thanks, that makes this statement confusing to me. If you take away all my worst behaviors, I am a good person too. Aren’t we supposed to be judged on the balance of good and bad? These character traits are just horrible in my opinion.
With some of us you'd have to take away a lot more than with others, so there's something to what Richard's saying.
For example, Vance doesn't seem sadistic or habitually cruel to those around him. Nor does he seem personally greedy (for material things) or driven by lust. Not a high bar for you and you friends, but politicians are a different breed.
Regarding JD Vance and what we should think of him you comment:
"He ran for Senate in order to make a point about Christian economics! But then, oops, somehow he ended up winning his seat. "
Maybe he underestimated how bad the opposing candidates was that he was running against. He might have come off as normal.
Look at the candidates who run today. Guy in Maine who tattoos Nazi emblems on his chest and is accused by at least one woman of rap.........and Bernie and AOC burn up credibility supporting this guy. People who want to "burn it all down." People who immigrated to the USA and who really don't buy into the Constitution and liberal democracy.
I don't know Vance well enough to make any judgement and I don't think anyone else really can do a Freudian analysis of him either. But next to many of the people who are being nominated he comes off as normal and relatable. That's a comment on the parties. They are not developing normal and solid candidates. In fact they are no longer in control. It's chaotic.
Americans want normal and relatable. JD Vance could easily be the next POTUS.
I wouldn't underestimate Vance in that respect and if the Dems nominate someone weak, which is highly likely, then Vance will look great by comparison.
Biden had charisma when he was younger--though not enough to be president. People elected him as a repudiation of Trump and a desire to get back to the safety of the Obama years--even if they didn't like Obama, his time in office was normal, and that's what people wanted in the midst of the abnormality of the pandemic and four exhausting years of Trump. Though, in his second term of just blatant corruption and theft, the exhaustion of Term 1 feels quaint.
I think people had enough of Obama and constant race politics. By the way, if you lived in the Middle East you didn't feel safe when Obama was dropping record levels of bombs.
The POTUS elections are close enough I really don't call them repudiations. The loser is typically only losing the popular vote by a 7 figure number.
We need to sober up and stop thinking that candidates for POTUS are Messiahs and are really winning a mandate for anything.
I don't think Obama was the one doing race politics largely, he just happened to be black and be the president at the same time. The rise of race politics were a largely conservative, conspiracy-laden backlash to a black president. The ideas people associate with "wokeness" became mainstream under Trump I, as a backlash to the backlash. We've had whipsawing woke/anti-woke ever since.
The race politics was driven by the right. You might recall that Trump’s most active foray into political sphere began with him accusing the president of not having been born in the US, but rather Kenya. I have never understood this rhetoric around Obama being racially divisive—his existence was racially divisive because the racist response to him made front page news regularly—but that was media coverage, not anything he actually did.
So you were born yesterday. Everything in the USA is about race and it has only gotten worse.
Obama made it a front of mind issue plus it's twin called victimology. And that fit into his view of the world when he flew around the world on an apology tour. Then he woke up and realized he was the POTUS and so he ended up dropping record numbers of bombs on the Middle East.
Riddle me this. Why is Obama considered Black and why does he think he is Black? His mom is White.
It's the hall of mirrors called racism. You think you are looking at something real but it's often a distortion.
Yeah, I think political charisma is about more than just seeming likable or normal or attractive, which are things Vance admittedly tends to struggle with. It's also about having a certain verbal deftness, functioning under pressure, and giving the appearance of knowing what you're talking about and "telling it like is" even when you don't and aren't. Contrast how well Vance has done in debates and in hostile interviews with how poorly Biden and Kamala often did against softball questions.
I'd definitely prefer someone like Rubio or one of the saner democrats, but I don't think a Vance presidency is out of the question depending on how the cards fall.
Vance "just" needs to keep doing what he's doing until he's the next GOP nominee, assuming someone else doesn't get it. Open Q how much autonomy, even as president, he would show if Trump is still alive. But what would he do after Trump kicks it? Do what is in his and the GOP's interests, I assume. But what would he interpret these to mean? And how would he use the autonomy he would have? Many Qs.
If the Democrats can't use the latest ammunition, that it isn't enough for this former hillbilly to have a palatial mansion with 33 rooms, a pool, a hot tub, on 27 acres, but he has to also have a second mansion or two in the VA horse country...then the Democrats are the ones that need an elegy. https://jeremydmayer811370.substack.com/p/elegy-for-a-hillbilly-image
An individual person may be highly dishonest or highly honest, but most politicians have to make some sort of moral compromises to do one thing they want. There was a quote from a senator (which I cannot find now!) who said he had given his morality to Boeing, allowing him to vote his conscience on anything else. (Of course Boeing was a big employer in his state.) In our system in particular there are two big parties with their own ideology, so if you really care about, say, abortion rights, and you have the combination of charisma, drive, and ambition to become a politician, you might forget about, say, banning pornography or keeping transwomen out of women's sports in order to become a Democrat and protect abortion rights in your state. And you probably would have to take payoffs from various companies, because otherwise you can't get elected and vote against laws restricting abortion.
Similarly, I believe Vance probably does have some mixture of antilibertarian (socially conservative, economically progressive) views, I'm guessing from a combination of Catholic social thought and his own working-class origins and alienation from the Ivy League milieu coming up. But he's not going to want to be Matthew Walther or Ross Douthat, arguing for that point of opinion in The Week or the NYT op-ed page. Dude likes power, like any politician, or he wouldn't be risking his marriage running for office when he could have a nice cushy life as a conservative lawyer. And the path to getting power and doing what you want as a Republican in the 2020s is to, well, tell Trump whatever you want to hear.
He got to be VP. It's not the most efficacious point in the government, but he has a profile, and he has a resume for whatever he wants to do next as a conservative. That he says a lot of silly things I will agree, but that is the price of power in the real world. Do you think Ketanji Brown Jackson *really* has no idea what the difference between a man and a woman is?
"No economist is ever cited for espousing the view that maximizing GDP is all that matters, or that the concept measures everything of value in the world, because no economist takes these positions."
Just as Trump is a poor person’s idea of what a rich person is supposed to be, Vance is the ignorant person’s idea is what a smart conservative is supposed to be. Yet, as Hanania points out, Vance doesn’t actually appear to be that smart. My impression is that Vance’s odd pseudo-intellectualism is the result of grafting a Yale Law School Degree onto what appears to have been a very mediocre high school and college education. Vance may actually be fairly high IQ but he never had to work or think very hard to succeed relative to his mediocre peers. At Yale he had to suddenly shift into high gear intellectually without having really mastered the basics. He’s like a musician who has memorized some impressive technical pieces but doesn’t really know how harmony works.
I disagree. There is a unitary theory behind what Vance is doing, motivations aside. The idea of Postliberalism and "common good" economics has been a long festering movement, focused on state sponsored unionship to ostensibly restore the one breadwinner union worker family. Postliberals think this arrangement builds the best character forming families and think the goal of Christianity is to build (Christian) character.
It's basically what we have always called "left-wing," but for someone reason because GOP was associated with some vaguely capitalist-sounding people we call them "right-wing" even as they spout the most ridiculous central planning nonsense.
The issue is with the incompetence of our political intellectuals. Vance is just cashing in on this. Politicians can't win office without giving the public what they want.
Excellent analysis. To state it more precisely: most politicians have some awareness of their own motivations and feel a lingering sense of guilt or attachment to those original incentives when trying to convince the public of their moral highmindness. It hobbles their effectiveness on the public stage: sometimes you can see their eyes shift as they try to switch between the public and private modes. JD's eyes never shift.
In JD, the connection between motivation and rationalization is completely severed: his instincts identify the direction in which it would be politically useful for him to go, but when explaining that decision, his conscious mind starts from a clean slate. He's like a patient in the famous sectioned corpus callosum studies: he keeps waking up in strange circumstances -- running for a Senate seat in Ohio, endorsing a man he once compared to Hitler -- and has to figure out the explanation from first principles, with one of those principles being the Triversian assumption that he's simply trying to do good in the world. I can't stop watching his interviews because no one else has quite his combination of off-the-charts IQ, total moral conviction, and total dissociation from his motivational center.
I see no evidence of off the chart IQ. Pretty typical elite law school grad, but no where near off the chart.
Rubio > Vance.
Nice effort to explain Vance. This story is not over.
"No economist is ever cited for espousing the view that maximizing GDP is all that matters, or that the concept measures everything of value in the world, because no economist takes these positions."
No, but that is the motte. We see the bailey when they argue in favor of enacting particular policies--such as very large scale immigration--on the basis of the argument that it will maximize GDP, as if there were no other consideratons.
I don't see anything honest about Vance.
Telling the truth about little things isn't a virtue, it's simply easier to tell the truth when you have no reason to invent lies. He probably thinks his story about the psalms is cute and wholesome and demonstrates what a good faithful guy he is. His Catholic faith is also likely a farce, look at how he treats the pope. There's nothing genuine about him.
I don't know what is going on in Vance’s head, but I do know that I won’t find out by reading this book, so I’ll pass.
But on your economics points, you are mistaken. I don't have time to write a treatise in the comments section, but I will say that there is *substantial* evidence that both mass migration and one-sided free trade have done significant damage to the American worker. Those aren’t the only problems, obviously, given that vast money printing looms large as a cause of economic dislocation, but if you ever want to discuss your Wikipedia-quality assertions about economics, I’m up for it.
A hedge fund executive quoted in The Atlantic a few years ago said, “If the transformation of the world economy lifts four people in China and India out of poverty and into the middle class, and meanwhile [that] means one American drops out of the middle class, that’s not such a bad trade.”
The scenario above is what actually happened starting around 2000, and it is what I strongly object to. That right there is the point of any discussion. For all his flaws, Vance understands this point better than anyone on the political stage right now. Which automatically makes him my current favorite politician.
How does this damage to the American worker trade off with the benefit to the American consumer?
That’s an interesting question, and I suppose you can argue it both ways, depending on your values. Clearly, the US has experienced economic growth and increases in GDP per capita since 2000; however, gains in the average don't mean gains for everyone. The benefits of lower prices accrue to everyone, but the costs of these lower prices (in lost careers due to offshoring and higher rental costs due to mass migration) hit the lower end of the socio-economic scale most harshly. Generally speaking, in a free economy, real wages should track productivity, but these two measures have been disconnected since the mid-70s. I don't want to minimize the disastrous effects of government overspending, and the resulting enormous inflation has caused the American worker — clearly, these are the primary causes of suffering. But adding offshoring and mass migration to the crushing inflation has taken a bad but manageable situation and made it catastrophic for large swaths of the native population, which you can see in the enormous increase in disability claims (older workers laid off, underwater on their mortgages, and thus unable to move), increases in drug (pot/opioid) use among natives, and a consistently high rate of suicide among older white men. None of these "consequences of hopelessness" were occurring at this high a rate before globalization.
I don't know you, but I’m 63, struggling to save enough for a retirement that may never come, and I’m positively *wealthy* compared to many working-class people. If I were fired tomorrow, it would be a catastrophe, as it’s very difficult for someone my age (really, anyone 50 or older) to break into a new profession. Imagine going from a good job as a skilled worker making $100K/yr to only being able to get a $20K/yr job as a Walmart greeter. Imagine what that does to a person psychologically. Now imagine being terminated and forced to train your replacement- an H-1 B Indian who has no connection to the country or community--how would you react to this? Honestly, given how often this occurs, I’m surprised there hasn’t been a revolution in the US. And, of course, if it isn’t stopped, there will be a revolution. As I wrote above, the attitude of our leaders is indifference to whether American workers drop out of the middle class, as long as Chinese and Indians go into the middle class, and they themselves (the leaders) get rich. No, thank you.
Who is ‘the American worker’? I don’t think this person can be defined. I’m interested to know your definition so I can understand the context of your assertions. Thanks.
What I mean by “American worker” is people who, unlike Richard and me, actually make something for a living. Or repair something, or do something other than provide services. Though now that I think about it, the low-end service industry (think hairdressers, landscapers, or retail clerks) has been devastating for native Americans, especially American youth, due to mass migration, as the migrants lowball native Americans out of these jobs.
The societal and economic effects of offshoring manufacturing and mass migration (there are devastating cultural, fiscal, and criminal effects too) include lower prices for everyone (due to the undercutting of native labor), but large numbers of people at the lower end are driven out of the workforce. I have driven around much of the United States, and the hollowing out of small towns, which I’ve seen all over the country, though mostly in the Northeast, is a crime against humanity.
And the whole thing is based on a flawed understanding of the Law of Comparative Advantage, as articulated by David Ricardo. Even Ricardo didn’t write what the Wikipedia-level intellects behind free trade and open borders said he wrote, yet they are in charge of our economic and immigration policies.
Aren't all politicians fake? They have to appear to be "moderate" to get elected (well, in most districts) but have to make sure graft flows to keep donors happy. Look at the history of John Cornyn: he carried water for every donor group on the face of the earth.
I do not even begin to understand what Vance thinks he has demonstrated about GDP. It is as if he is saying something like “Sure, your car has a speedometer — but that speedometer will tell you nothing whatsoever about your MPG or the best radio station to listen to!” Surely everyone knows that speedometers have great value in many contexts and no value in others.
‘And if you remove the political ambition that leads to taking absurd positions and telling himself false stories while deceiving himself about what is going on, I think one could say that Vance is in fact a good person.’
What is the purpose of this statement? Is it sarcasm? - because it sure sounds like it. Strange way to end the essay. Maybe I am reading it too literally.
One person's take, so make of it what you will, but after following Richard for the about a year now, I really think it's best to read him as someone who doesn't really do sarcasm or write in a self-consciously ironic way. For better or worse, I think he typically means precisely what he writes.
Thanks, that makes this statement confusing to me. If you take away all my worst behaviors, I am a good person too. Aren’t we supposed to be judged on the balance of good and bad? These character traits are just horrible in my opinion.
With some of us you'd have to take away a lot more than with others, so there's something to what Richard's saying.
For example, Vance doesn't seem sadistic or habitually cruel to those around him. Nor does he seem personally greedy (for material things) or driven by lust. Not a high bar for you and you friends, but politicians are a different breed.
Regarding JD Vance and what we should think of him you comment:
"He ran for Senate in order to make a point about Christian economics! But then, oops, somehow he ended up winning his seat. "
Maybe he underestimated how bad the opposing candidates was that he was running against. He might have come off as normal.
Look at the candidates who run today. Guy in Maine who tattoos Nazi emblems on his chest and is accused by at least one woman of rap.........and Bernie and AOC burn up credibility supporting this guy. People who want to "burn it all down." People who immigrated to the USA and who really don't buy into the Constitution and liberal democracy.
I don't know Vance well enough to make any judgement and I don't think anyone else really can do a Freudian analysis of him either. But next to many of the people who are being nominated he comes off as normal and relatable. That's a comment on the parties. They are not developing normal and solid candidates. In fact they are no longer in control. It's chaotic.
Americans want normal and relatable. JD Vance could easily be the next POTUS.
Zero charisma. Need charisma to win POTUS. Trump, Biden, Obama, Bush W, Clinton all had charisma.
Biden?
Bush W?
I wouldn't underestimate Vance in that respect and if the Dems nominate someone weak, which is highly likely, then Vance will look great by comparison.
Biden had charisma when he was younger--though not enough to be president. People elected him as a repudiation of Trump and a desire to get back to the safety of the Obama years--even if they didn't like Obama, his time in office was normal, and that's what people wanted in the midst of the abnormality of the pandemic and four exhausting years of Trump. Though, in his second term of just blatant corruption and theft, the exhaustion of Term 1 feels quaint.
I think people had enough of Obama and constant race politics. By the way, if you lived in the Middle East you didn't feel safe when Obama was dropping record levels of bombs.
The POTUS elections are close enough I really don't call them repudiations. The loser is typically only losing the popular vote by a 7 figure number.
We need to sober up and stop thinking that candidates for POTUS are Messiahs and are really winning a mandate for anything.
I don't think Obama was the one doing race politics largely, he just happened to be black and be the president at the same time. The rise of race politics were a largely conservative, conspiracy-laden backlash to a black president. The ideas people associate with "wokeness" became mainstream under Trump I, as a backlash to the backlash. We've had whipsawing woke/anti-woke ever since.
The race politics was driven by the right. You might recall that Trump’s most active foray into political sphere began with him accusing the president of not having been born in the US, but rather Kenya. I have never understood this rhetoric around Obama being racially divisive—his existence was racially divisive because the racist response to him made front page news regularly—but that was media coverage, not anything he actually did.
So you were born yesterday. Everything in the USA is about race and it has only gotten worse.
Obama made it a front of mind issue plus it's twin called victimology. And that fit into his view of the world when he flew around the world on an apology tour. Then he woke up and realized he was the POTUS and so he ended up dropping record numbers of bombs on the Middle East.
Riddle me this. Why is Obama considered Black and why does he think he is Black? His mom is White.
It's the hall of mirrors called racism. You think you are looking at something real but it's often a distortion.
lol
Yeah, I think political charisma is about more than just seeming likable or normal or attractive, which are things Vance admittedly tends to struggle with. It's also about having a certain verbal deftness, functioning under pressure, and giving the appearance of knowing what you're talking about and "telling it like is" even when you don't and aren't. Contrast how well Vance has done in debates and in hostile interviews with how poorly Biden and Kamala often did against softball questions.
I'd definitely prefer someone like Rubio or one of the saner democrats, but I don't think a Vance presidency is out of the question depending on how the cards fall.
You wouldn't underestimate Vance's charisma? lol
When a person responds with an LOL I know they are pretty shallow.
Vance "just" needs to keep doing what he's doing until he's the next GOP nominee, assuming someone else doesn't get it. Open Q how much autonomy, even as president, he would show if Trump is still alive. But what would he do after Trump kicks it? Do what is in his and the GOP's interests, I assume. But what would he interpret these to mean? And how would he use the autonomy he would have? Many Qs.
Exhausting. Totally and completely exhausting. Thank you, Richard H.
If the Democrats can't use the latest ammunition, that it isn't enough for this former hillbilly to have a palatial mansion with 33 rooms, a pool, a hot tub, on 27 acres, but he has to also have a second mansion or two in the VA horse country...then the Democrats are the ones that need an elegy. https://jeremydmayer811370.substack.com/p/elegy-for-a-hillbilly-image
Dishonesty is nonbinary.
An individual person may be highly dishonest or highly honest, but most politicians have to make some sort of moral compromises to do one thing they want. There was a quote from a senator (which I cannot find now!) who said he had given his morality to Boeing, allowing him to vote his conscience on anything else. (Of course Boeing was a big employer in his state.) In our system in particular there are two big parties with their own ideology, so if you really care about, say, abortion rights, and you have the combination of charisma, drive, and ambition to become a politician, you might forget about, say, banning pornography or keeping transwomen out of women's sports in order to become a Democrat and protect abortion rights in your state. And you probably would have to take payoffs from various companies, because otherwise you can't get elected and vote against laws restricting abortion.
Similarly, I believe Vance probably does have some mixture of antilibertarian (socially conservative, economically progressive) views, I'm guessing from a combination of Catholic social thought and his own working-class origins and alienation from the Ivy League milieu coming up. But he's not going to want to be Matthew Walther or Ross Douthat, arguing for that point of opinion in The Week or the NYT op-ed page. Dude likes power, like any politician, or he wouldn't be risking his marriage running for office when he could have a nice cushy life as a conservative lawyer. And the path to getting power and doing what you want as a Republican in the 2020s is to, well, tell Trump whatever you want to hear.
He got to be VP. It's not the most efficacious point in the government, but he has a profile, and he has a resume for whatever he wants to do next as a conservative. That he says a lot of silly things I will agree, but that is the price of power in the real world. Do you think Ketanji Brown Jackson *really* has no idea what the difference between a man and a woman is?
See Lant Pritchett's Economic growth is enough https://lantpritchett.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Basics-legatum-paper_SEJ_submission.pdf
"No economist is ever cited for espousing the view that maximizing GDP is all that matters, or that the concept measures everything of value in the world, because no economist takes these positions."