The Heir to Trumpism?
JD Vance and the Future of the Republican Party
By Frank DeVito
Bombadier Books, 224 pages, $20 softcover
With the day when Donald Trump leaves office on the horizon, attention is turning to what might happen next. For his supporters, the question is how the Trump revolution can be expanded and consolidated. To DeVito, who is senior counsel and director of content at the conservative Napa Legal Institute, the answer is obvious: Vice-President JD Vance. This book not only provides an insightful biography but sets out how Vance would change the Republican Party and, if elected, the country.
DeVito has no shortage of material to work with. The basic facts of Vance’s life are already known: born into a chaotic family in a drug-addled Ohio backwater and then given a chance by the intervention of his grandparents; service in the Marine Corps; a degree from Yale; a stint in the jungle of Silicon Valley; and eventually winning a seat in the Senate after a bruising primary contest. DeVito walks through all this in workmanlike fashion but his real interest is Vance’s intellectual journey.
He started with a libertarian philosophy, essentially believing — like many orthodox Republicans — that the best thing the government could do was get out of the way. In this view, the market was the best arbiter of outcomes, people could be trusted to make good decisions, and America’s institutions were basically sound. This was the root of his early opposition to Trump, who he saw as overly activist in policies and divisive in style.
For Vance, there was no sudden conversion but a gradual process of growth and realization. DeVito tracks through Vance’s large body of articles and published speeches, which is far more extensive than most people know. It was Vance’s 2016 book Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis that put him firmly on the intellectual map, and DeVito sees it as the key to Vance’s thinking. In the book and his other published work Vance took issue with the longstanding view of the Republican party that an ever-rising GDP and greater wealth for individuals were the marks of success.
Vance made clear he had nothing against wealth — after all, he had made good money during his time in the tech sector — but those metrics were not enough. In his emerging philosophy, a good person was one who was a faithful spouse, an effective parent, and a responsible member of their community. Living a decent, honest life was more important than the bank balance.
At the same time, he moved away from strict libertarian views. He realized that the key public institutions, not just the political institutions but also corporations, the media and academia, had become decayed, dysfunctional, and incapable of repairing themselves. They had turned into part of every problem rather than part of any solution. The far-left, Democrat-heavy elite had come to not just disdain patriotic, working-class Americans but to take delight in doing so.
The most significant area of contrast would be Vance’s interest in social policy, especially to encourage marriage and family formation.
Vance’s time in the Senate made him realize how deep the rot had gone. He sponsored several bills but since the Republicans were in the minority at the time there was little chance of them becoming law. Nevertheless, his efforts marked him out as a young-ish man with interesting ideas and tactical nous.
He also began to understand what Trump was trying to do and how it connected to an American revival. Vance started to appreciate Trump’s approach and his capacity to speak to ordinary people. The attempt to bring worthwhile manufacturing jobs back to America meant, to Vance, that broken communities like the one where he spent his early years might be able to dig themselves out of the hole of opioid addiction and welfare dependence. The traditional Republican strategy of telling people to work harder and behave themselves was not enough.
DeVito notes: “Vance is ultimately convinced that government solutions or admonishments to make good personal choices are not a sufficient answer to what ails us. People cannot rise up to overcome what they do not see. They need help.”
Government had to provide a sense of a viable path forward, and if that meant activism and intervention, then so be it. Vance’s childhood experiences demonstrated that people without hope and support make bad decisions, and continue to do so.
DeVito does not examine Vance’s time as Vice President in detail, although he emphasizes that he is respected in the Administration and has played an active role in critical decisions. Trump trusts him enough to handle sensitive, difficult tasks. This is a far cry from his VP predecessor, who was widely considered a liability who managed to get herself into trouble with every public appearance.
In the closing chapters of the book DeVito speculates on what a Vance presidency might look like. He believes that Vance would largely continue Trump’s economic policies, especially those that emphasize help for the working class and revitalizing the manufacturing sector. In foreign policy, Vance is more likely to focus on matters that directly affect American safety and security, although this has always been easier to say than do. The most significant area of contrast would be Vance’s interest in social policy, especially to encourage marriage and family formation. Vance has floated some interesting ideas, such as tax breaks for couples that have three or more children. But his broader agenda in this area is still a work-in-progress.
There would also be a crucial difference in governing style. As DeVito sees it, Vance is more of a thinker and persuader, likely to build coalitions and move incrementally rather than trying to steamroll through any opposition.
For the Democrats, a President Vance would represent an existential threat. He would work on expanding the inroads that the GOP has already made into Hispanic, Black and Asian communities, encouraging more candidates from these groups. As the Democrats race towards left-wing extremism Vance would aim to entrench the Republicans as the commonsense party, the party on the right side of 80/20 issues. This is a long way from the image of the GOP as the party of the country club and the huge corporations.
“Vance’s criticism is that the Republican party continues to try applying the same remedies as it did in decades past,” says DeVito, “even though the diseases of the day are different and require different treatment.”
Certainly, the activists of the far-left and the legacy media would hate him — they would hate any Republican — but Vance might be able to win over moderate Democrats and independents who cannot abide Trumpian bombast and belligerence. Trump is an easy person to hurl insults at — racist, misogynist, criminal, plutocrat, and so on — but none of that makes sense when thrown at Vance. The response is that he comes from humble circumstances, served his country, made his wealth on his own merit, and married a woman of Indian background with whom he has built a stable family. In other words, Vance might offer a Trumpian agenda without Trump.
However, it is not clear that Vance would easily step into the White House, despite DeVito repeatedly asserting it. Neither have there been any statements from Trump anointing Vance as successor, and there are other contenders, such as Marco Rubio, who could stake a viable claim.
Another issue is that the record of vice presidents becoming president is not great. Walter Mondale, Dan Quayle, Al Gore, Mike Pence and Kamala Harris either failed to win party nomination or were beaten at the polls. The VP role is no guarantee of moving up. Perhaps DeVito is letting his overall support of Vance color his judgement.
Despite its occasional shortcomings, JD Vance and the Future of the Republican Party is an interesting and important book, moving beyond the standard facts and musings of most biographies. As for Vance as President? Well, if this book is anything to judge by, you could do a lot worse.
READ MORE:
Michael Anton and the Fate of the Republic
Finding Our Constitutional Bearings
Derek Parker is a freelance writer and reviewer.