by Curt Mills
Tuesday, 23
March 2021
Explainer
16:00

Can J.D. Vance offer Trumpism without Trump?

The author's potential senate run is turning heads in Washington
by Curt Mills
J.D. Vance could be the new face of Trumpism. Credit: Getty

Imagine a figure in American politics who warned against offshoring, an incoherent immigration policy, national humiliation abroad and, finally, disrepair at home.

He inveighed against a neglectful elite.

But unlike Donald Trump, he served his country in an unpopular war, rather than avoiding one. He writes his own books. He “came from nothing”. That is, the details of his biography were material for emulation, rather than a monied embarrassment. Like so many young people growing up in the United States today, he had no strong father figure.

And if, to his critics, his remarks about the state of the union carried a Trump-like whiff of bigotry, he need only point to his young biracial family in America’s heartland.

For Republicans, J.D. Vance, the likely Ohio senate candidate, represents both change and continuity. He could become the embodiment of Trumpism without the downsides of the man himself. Now his candidacy is attracting media hype and high-altitude backers like Peter Thiel. 

The Hillbilly Elegy author is not without his critics. Kevin Williamson, a former colleague of Vance’s at National Review is not convinced that Trumpism without Trump is a viable electoral strategy:

Vance is a celebrity of a different kind. If my understanding of the actual political situation is correct, then Vance is going to have trouble tapping into that Trump energy, because it will turn out that after all there was no Trumpism, only Trump. I hope I am wrong. (I’m not).
- Kevin Williamson, National Review

Others on the nationalist Right will recall that Vance voted for Evan McMullin, the neoconservative protest candidate, in the 2016 election — not Trump. But if Vance’s candidacy really takes off such sniping won’t affect him. It would just be the far-Right mirror image of the far-Left scorn that Vance has attracted for years.

Whoever he cast his ballot for in 2016, Vance understands the realignment that’s underway in American politics. To read his February 2016 column, “Trump speaks for those Bush betrayed” is to read a figure at ease with the demise of the old guard.

And it’s true, Vance speaks in a way that spooks Reaganites. Here’s what he had to say at the 2019 National Conservatism Conference:

Right off highway 101… you’ll find the Facebook headquarters. And at Facebook, there are neuroscientists currently being paid a lot of money quite literally to addict our children to their applications. And not far from the Facebook headquarters, there are neuroscientists working on how to cure dementia…. The people who are working at Facebook…. make much more money than the people who are attempting to cure our society of its worst disease. 
- J.D. Vance, National Conservatism Conference

Can Trumpism survive Trump? That is the key question in Republican circles right now. After considering a run for years, Vance is finally poised to launch his political career and provide some answers.

Join the discussion


To join the discussion, get the free daily email and read more articles like this, sign up.

It's simple, quick and free.

Sign me up
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
47 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
1 year ago

So only someone from a bi-racial family who served in the military has the right to be against offshoring, an incoherent immigration policy, national humiliation abroad and, finally, disrepair at home.?
what kind of identity politics is this? Millions of Americans are against offshoring and illegal immigration. Does someone have to have some approved family structure to be against these?

Last edited 1 year ago by Annette Kralendijk
David George
David George
1 year ago

Sadly yes to your last question. Principles are meaningless, The Truth doesn’t exist and unless you’re woke credentialed in some way you’re an unconscionable xenophobic racist, sexist bigot.

jaqsarti46
jaqsarti46
1 year ago
Reply to  David George

…….good counterpoint

David Morley
David Morley
1 year ago
Reply to  David George

I think you are right. But I don’t think it will stop the hate. It will just take a while for people to rationalise it.
Perhaps marrying an “exotic” woman is an example of white supremacy since the fetishisation of the exotic is an aspect of colonialism, orientalism and white imperialism (I’m almost quoting from an article I just read).
Think I’m joking? Just wait.

Aldo Maccione
Aldo Maccione
1 year ago

I think what the article means is that he already has much of the answers for the impending “identity politics” attacks (“you’re too white, you’re too male, you’ve got too much money, you’re privileged,…”).
His background does not “allow” him his positions, but certainly will make it harder for his opponents to counter.

Last edited 1 year ago by Aldo Maccione
Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
1 year ago
Reply to  Aldo Maccione

And that was my point, what kind of identity politics is this? There is nothing at all about being against offshoring and illegal immigration that is race or gender based. Why would it be harder for his opponents to counter him? Because he was in the military? Because his family is bi-racial?

Andrew Baldwin
Andrew Baldwin
1 year ago

Yes, Annette, identity politics is a bore. Just the same, J.D.’s wife is sweet and America’s future is likely biracial. (Canada’s too, for that matter. My stepson is white, but all of my nephews and nieces are biracial.) “Hillbilly Elegy” is one of my favourite books ever, but I must admit, I really have no clue about J.D. when he talks about how to make America right. I read the 2016 article Curt Mills referenced. All I gleaned from it is J.D. doesn’t like illegal Mexican immigration because it’s bad for American workers wages. But he voted for McMullin in 2016 instead of Trump, the man who promised to build the wall. Does not compute. In interviews before Trump renegotiated NAFTA and replaced it with USMCA, he said that international trade deals weren’t going to cure the problems of Appalachia, but I had no sense at all of what he thought would. Maybe it will all become clear when he runs for office.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Baldwin

I could care less about his wife and family. Or that if any politician. It’s his views and those of anyone running for office that matter. Views on immigration have zero to do with identity. If he is pro legal immigration and anti illegal immigration, he gets my vote. If not, he doesn’t. Who he is married to matters not a bit. You may do identity politics, but I do not.

Fraser Bailey
Fraser Bailey
1 year ago

Trumpism might be defined as:

  • Stop all the stupid wars
  • Secure the borders
  • Stand up to China and return jobs to the US, as far as is possible

Outside of the neocons in Washington and the far left in various urban centres, most people agree with all of these positions. The problems were Trump’s overall demeanour and the overwhelming media bias against him, the media being the lapdogs of the neocons.
I think there are a few people who can overcome the ‘demeanour’ issue, notably Rand Paul and Ron di Santos (not sure how to spell his name). But again, one comes back to the media, which needs the wars for the ratings and the funding from Raytheon etc. Having seen a few interviews with Vance, I’m not sure that he has what it takes to overcome this.

J Bryant
J Bryant
1 year ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

Despite his impressive background, I agree that Vance probably doesn’t have the charisma to carry the torch of Trumpism and energize a sufficiently large base of voters willing to actually turn out and vote.
You also mention Rand Paul and Ron DeSantos. It think Paul is too much of an outsider and too idiosyncratic. DeSantos is the most credible heir to Trump at this time but it’s still very early. The Republicans have a huge job ahead redefining themselves. Incredibly, they will probably become the party of the working class. The question is how do they motivate enough of them to actually vote. Interesting times. Still waiting to see if Trump will fade into obscurity or find a new platform now that he’s been kicked off Twitter etc.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
1 year ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

Yes, my number one issue was to stop the wars and bring all troops home, from everywhere. Europe, South Korea, Middle East, everywhere. Trump was the anti-war candidate. de Santis would be an excellent choice, as would Kristi Noem in SD. What a ticket that would be! I like governors for presidential candidates because they have managerial experience that Senators do not. That was one of the the problems with Obama, that he had never run anything before. Biden hasn’t either. And it shows.

Last edited 1 year ago by Annette Kralendijk
Galeti Tavas
Galeti Tavas
1 year ago

The USA Military around the Globe is one of USA’s Finest Assets! I know them well. First is how many millions of US Military regular soliders serve overseas so in a nation not prone to heavy international traves, get to live around the world and find REAL people make up the foreign populations, people with differences ti us, but similarities. The Soldiers, the contractors who support them, the families of both get a HUGE vital lesson, they get to see the world. This benefits American understanding greatly.

Then the foreigners get to see the American Soldiers, find them well behaved, nice, young people and not bad guys, but rather like normal young people.

Then the world is kept aware of USA military Might AND that USA puts its money where its mouth is.

And also the Military Industrial Complex is funded, and that is a vital sector indeed! Take Europe military, they have foreigners make their uniforms, boots, gear. USA requires the gear be made in USA! The shoe/boot industry is gone in the West, but for USA where a huge business makes the footwear of the military. This is vital as we know from covid materials.

UK getting rid of 10,000 soldiers is CRIMINAL!!!!!!!¬ Military is a very honorable profession and needs to be encouraged, it provides many benifits, not merely in war. It makes men and women of boys and girls, it teaches skills, it keeps industry and innovation and pay circulation outside urban centers, a strong military gives the host nation a seat at the world’s top tables – and that is Important, it does so very much, and in time of war, saves you from defeat.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
1 year ago
Reply to  Galeti Tavas

I have absolutely nothing against the US military. I don’t want to spend US dollars keeping US troops in places that can and should be defending themselves. Like Europe. For troops stationed in South Korea, they should be replaced by troops from other nations. Japan, Australia, countries in Southeast Asia. I want to share the burden of security around the world, it should not be solely up to the US.
American military personnel should be home with their families, not stationed in places like Europe and South Korea. It’s well past time for others to do their part. If missions are necessary in the Middle East, Europe should take the lead.
This isn’t about seeing the world. The US military isn’t a sight seeing organization. If Japan or South Korea or Germany want US troops stationed in their countries because their own militaries are not up to the task of national defense, then they must pay the cost of those troops. It’s time for the freebies to end. As a plus, this might encourage other countries that are currently free loading off the US for their security to build their own defense capacity while encouraging less of an adolescent attitude of dependence coupled with resentment. It could lead to a seriousness that is sadly lacking in places.

James Rowlands
James Rowlands
1 year ago

“If missions are necessary in the Middle East, Europe should take the lead.”
I am a Brit and I can tell you a European army of say 30 nations would lose any war in the ME. Common language being the first serious obstacle, but behind it 100 others.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
1 year ago
Reply to  James Rowlands

That may be, but it has little to do with my point that the US should do less and others more. If they have to spend money to build military capacity, that’s okay with me. Whatever they spend, we save and it would be more equitable and help Europe gain some much needed political maturity. As it is, Europe are the angry teens, let’s let them join the adults.
Europe has far more to lose over wars and tensions and dictators in the Middle East than the US does since ME immigrants can get to Europe. But not the US, at least not easily. No region should be more interested in a stable Middle East than Europe.

Last edited 1 year ago by Annette Kralendijk
Jerry Jay Carroll
Jerry Jay Carroll
1 year ago
Reply to  Galeti Tavas

The US military began being radicalized under Obama and its highest ranks have more in common with his beta male instincts and thought processes than when it was strict policy to keep their noses out of politics. Just the other day the Marine Corps challenged cable news host Tucker Carlson for daring to point out the absurdity of designing flight uniforms for pregnant fighter pilots, to name just one Woke initiative rampant now. This comes at a time when the Chinese are emphasizing alpha males in its military. Visualize a hot knife cutting through a chilled custard pudding for the idea.

Fraser Bailey
Fraser Bailey
1 year ago

Yes, Kristi Noem is amazing. I forgot to mention her in my post.

Liz Walsh
Liz Walsh
1 year ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

She has just shown her talent and character by playing the long game, in bravely vetoing the proposed law to counter transfolk in women’s sports…It is important that she demonstrates understanding of the principle that Bad Law, even in the service of a cause with which one agrees, will come back back and bite one on the posterior. That is leadership material.

Su Mac
Su Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

Don’t forget “Drain the Swamp”. Without that one all the rest were hard/impossible…

Paul N
Paul N
1 year ago
Reply to  Su Mac

When did that one happen again?

John Huddart
John Huddart
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul N

Just before they built the wall!

Paul N
Paul N
1 year ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

Trumpism might be defined as:

Stop all the stupid wars

Secure the borders

Stand up to China and return jobs to the US, as far as is possible

If that was it, then many Democrat supporters would count as Trumpists. But there is lots of other stuff you get for free with the Donald – not all of it so “common sense”. And some of those policies, if carelessly or callously implemented, may not be entirely good. Borders can be secured without separating children from their parents, for instance (whoever may have “started” it, it’s still wrong, and continuing it was wrong).
Standing up to Russia might have been good. I mean China looks like it might invade some of its neighbours in the future, and is hugely repressive at home, and in Hong Kong – but Russia just did invade the Crimea. Bonus points for standing up to them without another stupid war!
Then there was the swamp – which just gets deeper. Time will tell whether Biden also makes it yet deeper – or not.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul N

“Borders can be secured without separating children from their parents, for instance”
yes. With a wall.

Ray Zacek
Ray Zacek
1 year ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

It is Ron DeSANTIS please. I live in Florida, voted for him, and will vote for him again.

Galeti Tavas
Galeti Tavas
1 year ago

Trump was about Patriotism, that was his core belief, that The United States of America is a beacon of light in a world always at risk from totalitarian, brutal, powerful, economy manipulating, global manipulating, warlike, nations, and freedoms must be first, and all be ready to make them the priority, and that means economic success and industrial independence, and a ferocity in defending freedom, as in a strong military, robust industry, and total adherence to the USA Constitution.

Trumpism is 70% Trump, which is very sad, as all the people who climb the greasy pole of political office have to sell out to so many groups that by the time they are in position to run for the highest office they have compromised in so many ways they are no longer really for anything.

Trump rose from outside the ‘Donor Class’, the ones who fund all political parties at all levels, and end up owning a politician just as Faust sold his soul to Mephistopheles. Trump could be an American First, unlike all the other ones who rose up the Party system as he owed no Global Elites allegiance. All thinking people see Biden as owned by the dark forces, and Harris more so, the Soros evil is throughout the Party system

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
1 year ago
Reply to  Galeti Tavas

“Trumpism is 70% Trump”
Sanford, I have to say that I disagree. Long before Trump, people were tired of unending wars, of supporting US troops all over the world, of guaranteeing the security of people who would not spend their own money to defend themselves. People knew the Iran deal was garbage, many said so at the time and when it wasn’t submitted to the Senate for ratification. Same with the Paris Climate Agreement. people were tired of China and Europe taking advantage of the US on trade and of unnecessarily high unemployment, of energy dependence. People wanted freedom to run their businesses unmolested by the US government. People knew that we had a cabal of elites who had zero experience running a business or creating jobs making a giant mess of things. They knew that immigration was out of control and the border was wide open.
Yes, Trump spoke to all those things. But he didn’t invent them. The minute he said he wanted to bring US troops home and end the wars his predecessors got us into, he had my vote. The economic policy was icing on the cake. But long before Trump I wanted these things, I had just never had the opportunity to vote for a candidate who said them so clearly and meant them as well. If another candidate come forward espousing these ideas, they get my vote, regardless of who they are. It does not have to be Trump. Or even a republican for that matter.

Last edited 1 year ago by Annette Kralendijk
Galeti Tavas
Galeti Tavas
1 year ago

Annette, I enjoy your posts, but we have a large difference in that I am very pro military. I have great experience in the world, I believe I understand much of it, and if you understand the world you are afraid of it, and military is like living in a very bad neighborhood but having a strong police presence. The voices to defund the military are no different that the ones to defund the police in this regard, but on an even more dangerous level.

Having some feel for the Middle East I was for the Iraq war, still am, I was not for the insanity of Bush and his insanely wrong, Paul Bremmer, losing the Peace. The peace should have been won! It needed a Marshal Plan, Local American Leaders who would work with cultural realities on the ground, and the region could have risen like Post WWII Japan, Germany, and Italy did, strong, free, and friends.

Sometimes I do wonder about neo-cons (Frasier mentioned above), that Very Weird group. Neocons have been called ‘Liberals Mugged by Reality’, but I think it is much more. I see their origin is some Liberal/Trot/Jewish thinking who saw the 1967, 6 Day War, saw how peace in the ME (in relation to Israel) could only survive with underhanded manipulation. Look at 1953 onward, how the governments were changing suspiciously, till 1979 (Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan all 79) I think neo-cons are discredited now, and gone as a force, but I still believe in military intervention as needed though. Their works from Vietnam through to Libya have been a very mixed bag indeed, but not all wrong. Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
1 year ago
Reply to  Galeti Tavas

Sanford, I have no idea what you are on about. Defund the military? Afraid of the world?
You’d be hard pressed to find a bigger proponent of a prepared US military. I’m sorry but you have the wrong end of the stick here.

Last edited 1 year ago by Annette Kralendijk
kathleen carr
kathleen carr
1 year ago
Reply to  Galeti Tavas

Trump was seen by his supporters as being independent of the political system , which is why his opponents pursued the Russian claims and now seem to be trying to use his tax returns to compromise him.As America seems to have their entire system ,judiciary ,education,military,secret service , media etc supportive of the democrat/globalist policies ,it doesn’t matter who is President as they would not be allowed to pursue a different agenda .Anyway Meghan wants to be President.

Paul N
Paul N
1 year ago
Reply to  Galeti Tavas

“Trump was about Patriotism, that was his core belief, that The United States of America is a beacon of light… and freedoms must be first… and that means economic success and industrial independence, and a ferocity in defending freedom, as in a strong military, robust industry, and total adherence to the USA Constitution”

If only!
Sadly (and I do mean sadly – I’m not happy about this) it’s wrong on so many levels.

Paul N
Paul N
1 year ago
Reply to  Galeti Tavas

“Trump rose from outside the ‘Donor Class’… who fund all political parties at all levels… he owed no Global Elites allegiance.” 

A Trump with integrity would have been more independent. The Trump we got was (let’s be charitable) supporting the understandable interests of the very wealthy and the owners of big business (rather than, say, their workers). He seems hardly more independent in practice than previous presidents. He even allowed his own commercial interests to influence policy (including where government events were held). But he did talk the talk on independence, which may have opened up that particular debate a little – even if that opportunity gets lost in the post-truth politics that seems to be on the rise.

John Huddart
John Huddart
1 year ago
Reply to  Galeti Tavas

Really, I thought a visibly cowed Trump looking fearfully at his smug smiling master Vladimir Putin at Helsinki in 2018, after their ‘very private’ meeting
pretty much said it all. Did Donny see something nasty in the wood shed, or did Vlad give him a personal copy of the ‘Pee’ tapes? Somehow I think/know Biden and Putin will have a totally different relationship on many issues in the coming years.

Last edited 1 year ago by John Huddart
Rick Sharona
Rick Sharona
1 year ago
Reply to  John Huddart

“Visibly cowed”. Mind reading at its finest.

Pssst-There was no “pee’ tape. All made up just like the Vlad controls Trump and they colluded to steal the election nonsense.
Maybe Slow Joe will have more flexibility than Trump did.

Saul D
Saul D
1 year ago
Reply to  John Huddart

Three years later and we know now that it was a made up story by political operatives. They deliberately set out to deceive you. And now, even with the evidence that they lied (eg Horowitz report), you remain committed to the spin. This is the Blueanon equivalent to Qanon. I worry that so many people are so easily misled.

imackenzie56
imackenzie56
1 year ago

What Trump finally showed me was that I was not a Republican. I thought I was, because I knew I sure wasn’t a Democrat. And so I kept voting for the Bushes and McCain and Dole and the rest of the pathetic, dishonest bunch, holding my nose the whole time. Trump came out and said what most non-Progressives actually believe and lo and behold he won. I’ll never again vote for a “hold my nose” Republican. Real Americans, or forget my vote.

Martin Terrell
Martin Terrell
1 year ago

Give him time. He’s reflects well the key issues of our time and seems very decent. Doesn’t mean he has to be a future president or may as well give up. A welcome addition to public life surely.

Chuck Burns
Chuck Burns
1 year ago

Replacing the phenomenon of Trump must include someone who is assertive and a fighter. Someone who does not go along to get along. Using the status quo as an excuse is not allowed. Trump invented the concept of “America First”. I am not aware of any politician prior to Trump making decisions based on what is best for America and the American people. The Left has indoctrinated the whole country to believe that putting America First is wrong. What is wrong is that we in America have not identified the Left as our most dangerous enemy. There should be no place in America for the intolerance, bigotry, corruption, criminality, violence, and destruction wrought on us by the Left. The new Democrat Party is the end justifies the means Left. Whoever thinks they can replace trump will have to fight the Left and win.

Matt Hindman
Matt Hindman
1 year ago

Kevin Williamson is a shameless, globalist neocon. He was tone deaf enough to suggest that poverty was the fault of the factory workers who did not move from where they lived after trade deals sent their jobs oversees. Williamson’s ilk like to pretend that rampant globalization, shady trade deals, and competition stifling corporate monopolies are just a normal part of Capitalism. Hint, no they are not!

Last edited 1 year ago by Matt Hindman
Paul N
Paul N
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

“rampant globalization, shady trade deals, and competition stifling corporate monopolies… [are not] just a normal part of Capitalism”

They kind of are – unless capitalism, multinationals, or whatever are regulated to prevent it.
But the idea that capitalism is something that exists free from regulation and government choices is mistaken. NAFTA was significantly about removing government restrictions (duties, etc) on movement of goods. That facilitated “globalisation” and offshoring jobs, especially in manufacturing. Which was a choice (a “shady trade deal” if you will, but one which gave capitalism more “freedom” to do what it does naturally). The tariffs that prevented or hampered offshoring were also a government choice (whether ultimately beneficial or not).
And competition-stifling monopolies develop naturally in markets where care is not taken to prevent them, and especially in markets where the government (lobbied by special interests) regulates to support them – as in the US telecoms monopolies.

Last edited 1 year ago by Paul N
Andrea Re
Andrea Re
1 year ago

I don’t care about Trump, but I did like his book and enjoyed the film (with few exceptions, which were usually the bits not in the book).

Gary Greenbaum
Gary Greenbaum
1 year ago

Williamson is a Never-Trumper who excused the failure of Trump’s 2016 rivals to endorse him.

Andrew Baldwin
Andrew Baldwin
1 year ago

I notice a lot of the comments on Curt’s post proceed on the implicit assumption that the 2022 election where J.D. Vance runs for senator and the 2024 election where Kristi Noem or some other Republican runs for president will be true elections where both the Republican and the Democrat stand a chance of winning. However, the message of the Regent University conference held yesterday on “Analyzing American Election Integrity” argues that if HR1 passes, there will be no more fair elections in the US, and the Democrats will win every time. Also, the people pulling the demented US president’s strings seem to be bent on letting in a huge influx of illegal immigrants and giving citizenship and the right to vote to those already here. So the composition of the electorate will make it much harder for Republicans to win in elections in 2022, and even more so in 2024 and afterwards.
The Regent University conference lasts seven hours and is too long for all but the most dedicated viewers, but when it is posted online, many UnHerd readers should at least think about dipping into it. Mark Steyn was there and had interesting remarks on the differences in how elections are conducted in America and British Commonwealth countries.

Andrew Baldwin
Andrew Baldwin
1 year ago

Today is inflation day in the UK, when the official consumer price inflation measures are updated. It occurs a week later than usual in the month because the annual weights are updated today. To look at the oldest measure, where there were no special changes made to account for the pandemic, the new weights relate to a fiscal year ending in June 2020. That means there is a timeliness in the basket updates of seven months, which is awesome. By contrast, the US CPI-U and CPI-W only has its basket updated every two years, with a basket update timeliness of 13 months. So both indexes suffer from what specialists would call upper level substitution bias, making inflation seem higher than it is, the US CPI-U and CPI-W more than the UK RPI, or the UK CPI for that matter.
The US C-CPI-U, or chained CPI, by contrast, virtually eliminates upper level substitution bias, and will likely show an inflation rate 0.2 to 0.4 percentage points lower than the US CPI-U going forward. This is because the index is chained monthly, using a formula that passes the time reversal test, and so is immune to upward chain drift. While not usually associated with Trumpism, it was Trump’s tax reform package that introduced the chained CPI for upratings by the federal government and his government was studying using the chained CPI for upratings of the Official Poverty Measure when he lost office. In the future, most upratings by the federal government should be based on the chained CPI, which should be the default inflation measure, supplanting the CPI-U. It is sad that this has become a partisan issue in the US. Joe Biden was at one time a promoter of the chained CPI for uprating Social Security, but in the 2020 election campaign he was advocating for the CPI-E instead, which has all the same defects as the CPI-U. The next Republican candidate for president, whether Trump, Kristi Noem, or J.D. Vance, should be a defender of the chained CPI. It is only logical.

Hardee Hodges
Hardee Hodges
1 year ago

Not sure Vance and Trumpism go together at all. Vance is a well educated non-politician needed in the Senate. He also isn’t a lawyer, even better credentials. I have no idea how Ohio views him but the nation needs more non-politicians in political office. I see comments regarding him as a potential President but I doubt him ready for that job anytime soon.

Jerry Jay Carroll
Jerry Jay Carroll
1 year ago

So just you know, Kevin Williamson can best be described as a Republican in Name Only (or RINO) He writes for a magazine kept afloat by the plutocratic Koch family, which was anti-Trump from the beginning, as was Williamson. That whole wing of the Republican establishment is known for losing graciously to the hard-nosed left..

Ray Zacek
Ray Zacek
1 year ago

Williamson grew up in poverty and squalor in Texas and, to be frank, despises his origins. A lot of his disdain for Trump and Trump followers is a matter of “I’m not them.”

Last edited 1 year ago by Ray Zacek
Phil Bolton
Phil Bolton
1 year ago

The danger for all of us (USA and the world at large) is that a future President of the USA is a Trump with nouse and a sense of strategy. Then watch out.