Jean-Marie Le Pen: he thought he could save France. (Credit: Robert DEYRAIL/Gamma-Rapho via Getty)

21 April 2002 was a watershed date in post-war French politics. Turning on their televisions that evening, the French public heard the startling news that Jean-Marie Le Pen, leader of the Front National — a party boasting a former member of the Waffen SS among its founders — had qualified for the second round of France’s presidential election with 18% of the vote. After a political career spanning 46 years, Le Pen had erupted from the fringes into the mainstream of French life.
Le Pen was born on 20 June 1928, in the Breton fishing village of La-Trinité-sur-Mer. He was christened “Jean”, but later affixed his middle name “Marie” to his first, hoping that the reference to the Virgin would attract Catholic voters. The family origins were modest: his father was a fisherman, his mother a seamstress. Nicknamed the “Menhir” — the Celtic term for a prehistoric stone monolith — Le Pen made much of his Breton origins. Who, after all, could be more “French” than someone rooted in the soil of ancient France?
Le Pen’s father died in 1942, when his fishing boat hit a mine. Though an accident, he was accorded the statute of someone who had “died for France” and so his son became a “pupille” (ward) of the nation. A clever but undisciplined schoolboy, Jean-Marie was educated at both state and Catholic schools, and ultimately expelled from two. In 1946, he left Brittany to study at the law faculty in Paris, financing his studies by taking on small jobs. He soon discovered his taste for politics as a student activist at the head of the “Corpo” — the union of law students. At a time when French politics was dominated by the Left, the Corpo was ferociously anti-communist and committed to the defence of empire. From the start, then, Le Pen was firmly on the nationalist Right, sceptical of Resistance worship and sympathetic to the disgraced Vichy regime.
Handsome and dashing, the young Le Pen entered a bohemian world of hard drinking, womanising and partying. In 1958 he was a second in a duel — one of the last to ever happen in France — between the Marquis de Cuevas, a flamboyant ballet impresario, and the dancer Serge Lifar. With Le Pen, violence was never far away. Political meetings at this time frequently degenerated into violence, and Jean-Marie was always in the thick of it. When Jacques Isorni, Marshal Pétain’s former defence lawyer, stood for parliament in 1951, Le Pen’s Corpo formed part of his bodyguard, ready to rough up political opponents. Le Pen never fully abandoned this style of politics, even after entering the mainstream. In 1997, when supporting the candidature of one of his daughters at an election, the 70-year-old Le Pen plunged into a crowd of demonstrators, physically attacking the Socialist candidate. “Run away you red-headed faggot!” he shouted to one demonstrator. In the Sixties, when he first entered politics, Le Pen acquired an air of romantic menace by wearing a black eyepatch. For many years, he let it be known that he had lost his eye in a political brawl. The more mundane reality was that he’d suffered an accident while erecting a tent for a political meeting. Later, the eye patch was replaced by a less intimidating glass eye.

Instead of setting up as a lawyer after graduating, Le Pen enlisted in the army in order to serve in French Indochina, where his country was battling a communist-backed nationalist insurgency. This satisfied both his political convictions and his predilection for violence and adventure. But Le Pen arrived in Saigon just after the disastrous French defeat at Dien Bien Phu, in May 1954, and which effectively ended French hopes of holding on to its possessions in Southeast Asia. Le Pen returned to France a year later, bitter about those politicians who had been ready to sell out his beloved empire. He now joined Pierre Poujade and his anti-establishment movement. It had emerged as a popular protest against taxes — but soon became an expression of wider discontents about economic modernisation and perceived national decline.
Le Pen showed himself to be a brilliant campaigner and an exceptionally gifted orator. In January 1956, 53 Poujadists were elected to parliament, among them the 25-year-old Jean-Marie. In one characteristic early intervention in parliament, he attacked the Left-wing politician Pierre Mendes France: “Monsieur Mendes France you crystalise in your person a certain number of repulsions that are patriotic and almost physical”. Mendes France, a Gaullist during the war, had been the prime minister who’d ended the French presence in Indochina. Yet Le Pen’s mention of “physical” repulsion was widely assumed to be an antisemitic innuendo. Certainly, provocations and insults of this kind were the stock in trade of Le Pen’s style throughout his career.
Quickly realising that Pouajde lacked the political intelligence to capitalise on his electoral success, Le Pen decided to enlist as a paratrooper in Algeria, where a nationalist revolt had broken out against French rule. This choice again corresponded to Le Pen’s taste for action and his belief in the importance of France’s empire. It was also good publicity for a newly elected parliamentarian to show he was ready to fight for his country. Two decades later, Le Pen’s six months in North Africa would become controversial when he was accused of torture. As far back as 1956, he’d declared in parliament that torture was “necessary and just”. In a 1962 newspaper interview he was unequivocal: “I have nothing to hide. I tortured in Algeria because it was necessary to do so”.
By the Eighties, though, Le Pen had changed that “I” to a “we” — claiming he’d been describing the army generally rather than him personally. Even so, evidence about his activities continue to appear. In 1984, for instance, an Algerian claimed that as a child he’d witnessed the torture and death of his father at the hands of a French soldier. He then produced a dagger left behind by one of the killers. Engraved on it were the words “JM Le Pen 1REP”. Historians, for their part, have also uncovered extensive archival evidence of Le Pen’s personal involvement in torture, including a report in 1957 from a French police commissioner. Not to be dissuaded, Le Pen pursued several legal cases against people accusing him of torture. He lost every time. The conclusion, then, must be that Le Pen was a torturer, and an enthusiastic one at that.
De Gaulle’s return to power ultimately led to Algeria’s independence in 1962. During that year’s parliamentary elections, Le Pen lost his seat. In 1965, he became the campaign organiser for Jean-Louis Tixier-Vignancour, standing as the candidate of the extreme-Right against de Gaulle for the presidency. During the Second World War, Tixier-Vignancour had been a junior minister in the Vichy regime. He later acted as the defence lawyer for several French officers who’d launched a coup against de Gaulle, hoping that a change of government in Paris could forestall Algerian freedom.

The putsch failed — but in 1965, Le Pen proved himself a dynamic organiser and brilliant campaigner. As a warmup act, he outshone the candidate he was supposedly introducing. In the end, Tixier scored only 5% of the vote. Le Pen felt, as with Poujade, that he had greater leadership qualities than the politician he’d chosen to serve. For the moment, though, the prospects of the far Right were at rock bottom, and Le Pen earned his living by setting up a company producing discs of military music and marching songs. Among others, that included the “Horst Wessel Lied”, a Nazi anthem.
Le Pen returned to politics in 1973, as head of the newly formed Front National (FN), a union of various extreme Right organisations. The brains behind the new operation was François Duprat, a virulent antisemite and one of France’s earliest Holocaust deniers. He became an intellectual mentor to Le Pen, and after his assassination in by Right-wing rivals in 1978, Le Pen attended an annual memorial ceremony in Duprat’s honour. Le Pen was approached to be leader of the new FN because he’d once been an MP, giving him an aura of respectability. It also helped that he boasted an extensive address book of Right-wing contacts, while equally not being associated with any one specific group. His brilliant oratorical skills were another attraction.
The FN party said it supported a “national and social renewal” (redressement) — exactly the word Pétain had used in 1940 to describe his own vision for France. In the presidential election of 1974, Le Pen secured only 191,000 votes (0.75%). In 1981, he didn’t even gather enough signatures to be qualified to stand. But though he was still politically marginal, Le Pen’s personal situation changed dramatically when, in 1976, he inherited a colossal fortune from the Right-wing industrialist Hubert Lambert. The will was unsuccessfully contested by Lambert ‘s family, and Le Pen moved into a palatial new residence. A few months later, the house suffered a massive bomb attack. The bombing was possibly organised by a rival far-Right faction, though was more probably related to the contested inheritance. At any rate, Le Pen’s new-found wealth gave him political independence, and the FN practically became Le Pen’s family affair.

Politically, too, his fortunes were about to change. From the mid-Seventies, the post-war boom had started to stall. In response, Le Pen shifted his rhetoric away from imperial nostalgia and anti-communism towards a new theme: immigration. “One million unemployed equals one million too many immigrants,” was one new slogan. Le Pen also claimed that foreigners were responsible for alleged increases in delinquency and crime. His political breakthrough came at the municipal election of 1983, when an FN candidate was elected to the municipality of Dreux outside Paris. At the European elections the following year, the FN scored 11% of the vote. Suddenly, Le Pen had become a national figure. Invited for the first time to speak on television, he proved as effective a performer on the small screen as in public meetings: his truculent eloquence was a refreshing contrast to the slicker performances of most politicians. The FN received a further boost in 1986 when the Socialist President François Mitterrand, knowing that he risked losing forthcoming parliamentary elections, decided to introduce proportional representation as a way of splitting the Right-wing vote. At the elections, the FN duly obtained 35 seats. Le Pen returned to parliament for the first time since 1962.
He now sought to give himself international stature. He was photographed meeting Roland Reagan in 1987; he visited Saddam Hussein of Iraq in 1990. He also developed ties with Sung Myun Moon, the Korean leader of an anti-communist sect, who financed his campaigns. FN propaganda also mediatised the Le Pen family, showing the Breton paterfamilias with his wife Pierrette, and their three blonde, blue-eyed daughters. This vision of the happy family was shattered, however, when the marriage broke up and Pierrette posed in Playboy to embarrass her husband. The children sided with their father, and Le Pen remarried in 1991.
From the mid-Eighties, the rise of the FN seemed inexorable. At the presidential election of 1988, Le Pen scored 14.4% of the vote, coming fourth in the first round. In 1995, he slightly increased his score, coming fourth again. At municipal election in 1995, the party for the first time won control of four townhalls, including in Toulon. But though Le Pen was becoming a familiar figure of French politics, he hadn’t been entirely tamed. In 1987, during the trial of Klaus Barbie, Le Pen questioned whether the Nazi gas chambers had existed. As the Butcher of Lyon sat in court, Le Pen also called the Holocaust a “detail” of history. The following year, he made a sick joke about gas chambers. These opinions certainly expressed Le Pen’s own antisemitic convictions, but they were also calculated provocations to keep him in the news. No wonder one popular satirical TV show portrayed him as a vampire.
Some in the Front National began to wonder if Le Pen was serious about achieving political power, or whether he was happier being an eternal provocateur. Bruno Mégret, Le Pen’s deputy, pushed for an alliance with the centre-Right at the price of toning down some of his more extreme rhetoric. Mégret was far from a moderate — it was he who introduced the theme of Islamophobia into FN rhetoric — but Le Pen resented any challenge to his authority. Expelling Mégret from the party in 1998, he declared: “I am killing Brutus before Brutus kills me”. Mégret took most of the administrative infrastructure of the FN with him, and many believed that Le Pen was politically finished. Then came the bombshell presidential election of 2002 where, to universal surprise, Le Pen beat the Socialist candidate and qualified for the second round.
That bombshell result was partly the result of a split in the Left-wing vote in the first round. Yet it was also evidence that Le Pen was now appealing to many working-class voters, erstwhile Leftists but who felt the Socialists no longer spoke for them. In the end, of course, shock at Le Pen’s success pushed mainstream politicians into an alliance to defend democracy. During the election’s second round, Le Pen was trounced, barely improving on his first-round score.
What seemed like an inexorable rise seemed to have been checked at the next presidential election, in 2007, when Le Pen’s vote slipped to 10% and he found himself in fourth place after the first round. But this was because the successful candidate of the Right, Nicolas Sarkozy, shamelessly muscled into Le Pen’s territory, borrowing the FN leader’s themes of threatened national identity. What seemed like a setback was, in some sense, an ideological victory. As Le Pen had always said, in the long run voters would always “choose the original over the copy”. This proved prescient.
Sarkozy partly won in 2007 because he was young and dynamic, while Le Pen, just shy of his eightieth birthday, seemed like a figure from the past. Even he now realised it was time to pass the baton on. In 2011, his daughter Marine succeeded him at the head of the party, while her father remained the FN’s honorary president. Marine Le Pen, while in no way comprising the party’s core values, quickly set out to “detoxify” the brand, dropping the antisemitic and pro-Vichy references that repelled so many voters. Her strategy seemed to work: at the election of 2012, her 18% score in the election was more than Jean-Marie had ever achieved. But the incorrigible Le Pen, perhaps jealous of his daughter’s success, refused to play by the new rules. In 2015, he gave an interview defending Pétain. Marine Le Pen responded by expelling him from the party. This act of parricide ended Le Pen’s political career.
Yet the old bruiser still managed to cause a stir, publishing two volumes of memoirs. The first, appearing in 2018, was an instant bestseller. Its publication, just before the FN party congress, was timed to cause maximum embarrassment to Le Pen’s daughter. The memoir settled plenty of old scores and delivered a final verdict on de Gaulle. “A false great man whose destiny was to help France to become small,” Le Pen proclaimed at the very moment his daughter was busy adopting the general as a hero. Perhaps ironically, though, such provocations may ultimately have helped Marine campaign to present a more moderate façade — not that there’s any reason to think this was his plan.
Over an astonishingly long career — at his death he was the last surviving parliamentarian from the Fourth Republic — Le Pen had helped to transform the French political landscape. He was a precursor of the populist and racist nationalism that has now become the common currency of democratic politics. Eloquent and thuggish, charming and brutal, he was rooted in a long French tradition of far-Right politics. The Pétanism of the Forties was one incarnation, but Le Pen had the skill to adapt that heritage to the changed conditions of the Seventies and beyond. The man himself may now be dead, in short, but Lepenism still poisons the bloodstream of his nation’s politics
As a Protestant I do not completely love JD’s reliance upon the Magisterium, i.e. “historical Christianity” because I’m less than convinced that those ideas are adequately based in Holy Scripture. However, I’m much more inclined to accept JD’s logic than the kind of “gotcha” criticisms from naysayers like Stewart.
“Vance, the practical politician, must find a way to reconcile the two camps — or, at least, to preserve his freedom to lean now in one direction.”
Exactly, except that in the secondary role of VP he has to do so – like Ginger Rogers – backwards and in high heels, a feat made more challenging because he’s dancing with Soupy Sales, not Fred Astaire.
The far left have been subverting Christianity for decades, trying to justify their various hateful agendas, like open border ‘immigration’.
How do you know your enemy? They’ll tell you it’s ok to commit suicide and that strangers matter more than family.
JD Vance is brilliant. Looking forward to him demolishing many more midwits who fancy themselves an intellectual match for him.
I’m seriously thinking of getting “I really don’t care, Margaret” printed on a t-shirt.
Let’s get one thing straight – if JC came back down today he’ll be in the refugee camps and with the homeless migrants and not with the likes of JD and his warped view of JCs teaching.
JC may have said ‘render unto Caesar’ but he was drawing a sharp distinction that JDs late arrival to Catholicism fundamentally seems to have missed. Caesar is not God and God knows no national boundaries JD. You choose to work with a man who thinks nothing of demonising others for personal gain and prefers walls to brother and sisterhood. Thirty pieces of silver indeed.
A succinct, lucid exposition of the consensus of many church leaders for the past 50 years, but they have been wrong, as the state of the world and their churches demonstrates.
In the gospels JC spends time with all classes of people, rich and poor. He visits the home of an officer of the army of occupation, heals his daughter and praises his faith; he’d be excommunicated by “right thinking” contemporary Christians for doing that in Gaza.
His family were refugees themselves, but they returned home as soon as it was safe. This is a crucial point; refugees want to return home, unlike so many migrants we have on the UK. A system designed to give temporary respite to distressed people before they could return home has been made into globalist racket which keeps developing countries poor by asset stripping their populations while simultaneously destroying the cultures of the target nations. Presenting this travesty as a moral or Christian act is grotesque.
I also take issue with your disparaging Vance’s “late arrival”. I grew up in an environment where converts were the butt of jokes because of their earnestness but experience has taught me that adult converts are usually better informed and more sincere than cradle Catholics; this certainly seems to be true of Vance.
Maybe Vance can debate the proposition that the Catholic clergy is principally comprised of people who commit sex abuse of minors on social media.
Stewart’s true name is Roderick, not Rory.
He sails under false colours in name, as he did in politics.
Of course Vance was christened “JD”. He doesn’t have any actual given names.
They are the initials of his given names.
Stewart has assumed an entirely different given name.
So, a bit like Tommy Robinson?
Indeed, very much like Tommy Robinson.
Both have a body of followers who mistakenly consider them to be “truthsayers” of integrity.
Is he funded by rich US Zionists to forment conflict in the UK too then?
It’s James David Vance….
So why not simply call himself James Vance, rather than JD?
Unherd if you want to grow get better writers with more diversity of opinion.
Hey guys! I have found out how many there are of us! If you have invested in Unherd or work there DON’T READ ON
In the Daily Telegraph they have a similar article on Vance vs Stewart with 2288 comments, and from 500,000 subscribers that is one comment per 218 subscribers.
In the same time window as the DT, 4 hours, five of us have commented. 5 x 218 = 1090 subscribers!
At say 40 pounds per year …. Gross income = 43, 600 pounds.
I note that you are still giving UnHerd your money, even though it seems you don’t like a single thing about it.
I like a good problem to solve. Unherd is just that. It makes a heavy loss obviously. It deflects any criticism of Starmer. It repeats the government narrative. All the Starmer scandals are ignored. Ali, Hermer, Chagoss, Reeves, Pakistani rape gangs. 4 hour interrogations without a lawyer or the right to silence are now commonplace in UK.
Silence about all of these issues in Unherd.
So who owns Unherd?
Vance is hypocritical trash and his opinions on any subject can be safely ignored.
His willingness to prostrate himself at the feet of the orange buffoon who he labelled a N@zi not so long ago tells you all you need to know about him.
Rory Stewart has more integrity and intelligence in his little finger than the entire MAGA crew combined.
Is this Alistair Campbell?
I’m not sure this is the place for your online flirting, dearie!
I like you
You remind me once again how smart I am.
I think most of us here feel the same sense of gratitude to you.
That’s exactly why I am here – to let you people know exactly how smart you are!
Rory is no match for Vance. JD summed him up with absolute precision when he said he’s a man with an IQ of 110 who thinks he has an IQ of 130.
Remember JD on record saying Trump is an ‘idiot’, and worse. So with this in mind what’s your view on the veracity of his utterances?
That’s the wonderful thing about Christianity.
People are not burdened and condemned by the faults and mistakes of their past but can learn from them and seek forgiveness and redemption.
It’s about the evolution of the mind and soul.
Indeed.
Now back to JD – what veracity would you put in his statements? Or are you giving him an advance pardon?
How about you read and listen to his statements and form your own opinion. Harder but ultimately more worthwhile than this trolling, surely.
Clearly you’re burdened and condemned by not being able to read others’ answers to you.
In other words, you can get away with anything.
If you look at Vance’s IQ tweet, he was making a general point about the incompetence, mediocrity and ideological certainty of elites across the west.
What ever you think about Trump, he has broken through this veil of hive-mind middle-management banality by sheer force of personality.
The IQ issue with Stewart was separate to JDs pronouncement on Catholic teaching BW.
Regardless of IQ scores, and I agree intelligence if measured needs a broader appreciation, one can’t argue Trump’s picks been based on talent, experience, consistency or that intangible, innate intelligence. JD knows the key determinant is fealty.
Problem is eventually ability is required to do as serious job.
Yeh but the criticism of prevailing establishment orthodoxies and their midwit backers still stands.
It remains to be seen how successful Trump, or any populist movement in Europe, will be.
But the neoliberal consensus, technocratic managerialism, US-dominated liberal globalism, or whatever you want to call it, seems to be coming to an end.
Trump’s picks do lean heavily in the direction of Dawkins’s”cultural Christianity” which helps Vance overcome accusations of intellectual inconsistency.
I imagine in private he stands by every word. He is clearly Trump’s intellectual superior and I for one am very glad to see him so prominent, much, much more than his three immediate predecessors.
As for Rory Stewart, this is the sort of undressing that every lazy British political commentator deserves.
Roy suffers the Dunning–Kruger effect.
Stewart is not letting it go on X. He has doubled down and is digging a deeper hole for himself and his abstract view of what moral duty is.
He was also interviewed about his encounter with Vance on the BBC Radio4 Today programme this morning. Stewart is creepy!
RS is spoiling over having made
a. a career as a politcal pundit
and
b. most disastrous US Election prediction ever
The latter clearly delivering ‘a shell below waterline’ to the former, HMS Hood style.
I put myself through purgatory listening to Rory Stewart’s recent political autobiography. He reveals there he wanted to join the Lib Dems as an MP but was persuaded not to by friends and family that he could ‘do more’ as a Conservative. What a disgraceful man. Entering a different party out of career vanity.
And what a disgrace the Conservatives for allowing it. (Or was that part of The Plot to destroy the Conservative Party? But that’s another story which you won’t read about in Unherd)
Entering a different party out of career vanity – Is he the first one to do this?
Perhaps the first one to admit it in an autobiography.
Try reading Occupational Hazards.
All politicians do it. It wasn’t that long ago Vance was slamming Trump as a N@zi after all
9 people downvoting something that actually happened because it’s politically inconvenient?
No. In America this is basically the rule not the exception. We expect our politicians to vote how we want them to regardless of how they feel about it. If they can’t do that we’ll just send somebody else who will. It’s perfectly normal and acceptable that Joe Biden circa 2020 can say things that completely contradict what Joe Biden circa 1975 would or did actually say about the same issue. It’s when the politicians don’t vote how the people want that the people get upset. In 2010, there were quite a lot of Republicans that were voting in a way that contradicted the voters of their district. Many of these are no longer employed as politicians. Others have sensibly seen the error of their ways and returned to the peoples’ good graces. A few are now whining about how unfair and wrong their voters are to the other side’s media outlets. My response to them is.. ‘You had one job’, vote how the people want and you managed to fail at this simple task. Good luck to you in your career outside politics.
I seem to remember a guy called Winston Churchill changing party on a few occasions.
And his party won only one of the three elections it fought with him as party leader.
He did find time to defeat Hitler though.
I’m unaware that he did any actual fighting.
As with most “war leaders” that was for others to do…and suffer.
I believe Churchill’s efforts were confined to meetings with “allies” (but certainly not friends) of Britain which got the country so indebted as to become a vassal, whilst enjoying a rather privileged lifestyle not shared by the British people.
In the end, the object of the declaration of war, Poland, became a vassal state of a similar dictatorship to that from which it was to be saved.
Even with the most benevolent “gloss”, which Churchill’s (or more correctly his ghostwriter ‘s) subsequent writing gave it, the final result was, in the words of the Japanese Emperor, “not necessarily to our advantage”.
Churchill was 66 in 1940. Do you really think he should have engaged in actual combat? He did fight in the trenches in WW1, after the Gallipoli disaster, having had previous experience in four earlier conflicts. Being a statesman is also necessary for winning wars, would you not agree?
A competent military is necessary for winning wars.
A statesman puts the best interests of his country as his paramount purpose. That very rarely entails fighting wars from which his country cannot benefit.
“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting”. That is the point of the statesman.
And how do you suggest we could have subdued the Third Reich without fighting?
Hitler did have to be fought though, and Churchill was instrumental in ensuring that Britain did what it had to.
A lot of Churchill’s fighting was done against cowards like Neville Chamberlain.
Chamberlain was no coward. His machinations were done to bide his time in building up arms then to enter a European war, pretty much at whatever the cost, this being the whole purpose of the guarantee to Poland.
He did so purely because Britain would be marginalised within Europe and the North Atlantic postwar, were it not involved.
Sitting there while waiting for whoever out of the Germans and Russians would backstab each other first, then getting the USA involved following a deal to ship the UK’s remaining Empire booty to Fort Knox via Toronto, was probably very tactical, but it is not ‘defeating Hitler’.
He fought the Germans only on selected fronts, and much of the British plan seems to have involved fighting the Italians, who were clearly unready for war and would not have been, by their own accounts, until 1948.
I put myself through purgatory listening to Rory Stewart’s recent political autobiography.
Why?
Why did I buy it? I thought it might be interesting. Why did I not give up? Stubbornness? Hope he might show some self-awareness somewhere in the book? He doesn’t. I don’t know. I got to the end.
Based on your recommendation, I’ll probably buy it.
I see nothing untoward in seeing good policies and good people in more than one party. The main parties all contain people with widely ranging viewpoints.
We have two parties of government. The upside of being in one of them is that if your party is in government you have more of a chance to make a difference, to achieve something; you also realise that government requires compromise. If you are in one the other parties, the parties of protest, you can just criticise from the outside, but you may (party loyalty permitting) be able retain the purity of your ideals.
Uh huh. Wasn’t Donald Trump originally a Democrat?
Didn’t Winston Churchill do something like this?
US 1 – 0 UK
Again.
Rory Stewart is a typical UK media voice. That’s our biggest problem. Where are the voices of the Right in UK media discourse?
Yes, he’s the embodiment of ‘institutional man’ or ‘status quo man’. Every regime in history has them floating around, depends on them even.
One of the best moments since X became X – The VP engaging in midwit-meme jibes at Rory Stewart’s expense
I really really wanted to see how Vance would have dismantled Harris as she tried to defend nonsense against common sense and cackling all the while making a fool of herself. Vance strikes me as the quiet, intellectual advocate for the common man who will cite chapter and verse and note the views of this or that philosopher rather than engage in the pointless name calling and braggadocio that his boss does. There’s nothing that’s so unnerving as being beaten at your own game, and Vance’s ability to spar intellectually with the left and debate intellectual abstractions in an insightful way makes him able to actually reach out to the educated voters that Trump alienates with his circus side show antics.
Absolutely. Hopefully he will be the next president
I’m good with that. Hopefully Trump will expire tomorrow, and Vance can take over the top job immediately thereafter.