James David Vance has undeniably ascended to a position of significant influence in American politics and culture, especially considering his relatively young age. His journey, detailed in his acclaimed book Hillbilly Elegy, is a compelling narrative of social mobility and political transformation, a story often discussed and dissected across various platforms, including political commentary on platforms like John Podhoretz Twitter.
Vance’s background, as meticulously explored in Hillbilly Elegy, is not one of simple economic hardship, as Kevin Williamson pointed out in his review for COMMENTARY. Williamson highlighted that Vance’s grandparents, despite their humble beginnings and past struggles, achieved financial stability, owning a comfortable home and luxury cars. Growing up in Ohio during the 1990s, Vance’s household income was substantial, equivalent to approximately $175,000 today. Instead, Vance’s story is rooted in the complexities of human fallibility and its ensuing repercussions. He navigated a fractured family dynamic marked by an absent biological father, a stepfather who soon departed, and a mother battling addiction. Amidst this turbulence, his grandmother emerged as a formidable, albeit sometimes volatile, figure of stability.
Vance’s narrative resonates deeply because it embodies the quintessential American success story. He distinguished himself early on through his diligence and seriousness, impressing mentors in academic, professional, military, and legal settings. He proactively sought a path beyond the chaos of his upbringing, a feat achieved through a combination of seemingly straightforward actions, like consistent work attendance, and profoundly complex decisions, such as consciously choosing to break free from cycles of dysfunction.
At 31, Vance published Hillbilly Elegy, initially aligning himself with viewpoints often found in publications like COMMENTARY. He championed personal responsibility, advocated for a hawkish foreign policy (ironically debuting these views on David Frum’s website), and underscored the significance of the American experiment. He was critical of the political currents embodied by Donald Trump and the burgeoning MAGA movement, perceiving them as deviations from true American ideals. In 2016, Vance voiced concerns that Trump was leading the white working class down a “dark path.” In a 2017 book review for COMMENTARY, commissioned by John Podhoretz, Vance analyzed Amy Goldstein’s portrayal of Janesville, Wisconsin, Paul Ryan’s hometown, a city grappling with economic distress. He concluded his review with a poignant observation:
“The tendency in our politics is to reach for the familiar and the easy: We should cut taxes to spur economic growth and bring Janesville’s jobs back. If that doesn’t work, we should retrain Janesville’s workforce for new jobs. If that doesn’t work, perhaps the workers of Janesville should just move. There may be limited virtue in some of these ideas—our society could do for a lot more geographic mobility, for instance—yet they also seem to miss the point.”
He further elaborated on the limitations of conventional economic solutions:
“Our entire economic playbook is the consequence of a 40-year conversation started by Ronald Reagan, a man who wisely recognized that the paradigm of the previous four decades had broken down in an era of stagflation. Now we argue about whether to blame unscrupulous Wall Street bankers or an overreaching federal government. We talk about whether to increase the minimum wage, and if so, by how much. I could go on and on, but as I read Goldstein’s wonderful book, I found myself asking: Would any of it make a significant difference to Janesville?”
Vance concluded with a sobering assessment:
“The answer, I fear, is no. We have entered what Senator Ben Sasse calls a ‘historically unique’ period of disruption, one in which millennials change jobs more frequently than previous generations, exciting industries require new skills and training, and our families and communities struggle to respond effectively. Yet our politics and our policy thinking are boringly conventional. That should worry you, not just because the people of Janesville are decent and hardworking, but because the problems of Janesville will almost certainly come to a town—or big city—near you.”
This frustration with ineffective public policy, mirroring his observations in Hillbilly Elegy, led Vance to identify a fundamental issue within American society: an intangible element fostering self-destructive behaviors, resistant to conventional political or think-tank solutions.
“One temptation, for both the residents of Janesville and certainly for the reader, is to take stock of the situation and to lash out at something—at the ‘system,’ at capitalism, at government overreach, at Paul Ryan, even at God. Yet the great virtue of Goldstein’s Janesville is that it refuses to indulge in the trite simply because it might prove cathartic or reassuring.”
Since then, Vance’s trajectory has been described as either an evolution, marked by a shift from pessimism to a proactive desire to reform the “system,” or a calculated maneuver to seize a political opportunity. Possessing youth, intellect, wealth, energy, and a compelling personal narrative, he began to publicly echo the sentiments of those in places like Janesville, asserting they had been wronged by Washington and elite circles.
This juncture marked a shift for Vance, as he embraced a more simplistic narrative, championing Donald Trump as the voice of neglected America. Having previously denounced Trump in 2016, he declared his conversion by 2020. This move, in retrospect, appears to be a strategically brilliant political calculation. Two years later, he secured a Senate seat in Ohio, and within 19 months of his inauguration, he emerged as a vice-presidential candidate on a leading ticket. This rapid ascent mirrors Richard Nixon’s early career trajectory; Nixon was nominated for Vice President at 39 and, after a series of political vicissitudes, reached the presidency in 1968. Vance, like Nixon, is poised to remain a prominent figure in American politics for decades, prompting the question: what kind of political figure will he be? Discussions and analyses of Vance’s evolving political stances, and their implications, are frequently observed within political discourse, including on platforms like John Podhoretz Twitter, where commentators and observers alike dissect his moves and motivations.
While Vance’s ascent is undeniable, his current political positions are subject to scrutiny. His skepticism towards the Ukrainian resistance against Russian aggression, echoing Trumpian rhetoric, suggests that aid to Ukraine diverts resources from domestic needs, specifically mentioning places like Janesville. However, this argument overlooks the scale of US government spending. The financial commitment to Ukraine, approximately $100 billion over two years (or $50 billion annually), constitutes a mere 1.6 percent of Washington’s $6 trillion annual expenditure. This relatively modest investment is instrumental in countering Russia’s expansionist ambitions in Europe, a continent scarred by two devastating world wars.
While genuine shifts in political beliefs are possible, Vance’s alignment with a segment of the Right fixated on Ukraine’s supposed moral failings appears opportunistic. This instrumentalist approach, however, has undeniably contributed to his political success.
The permanence of this transformation remains uncertain. Richard Nixon, initially chosen as Eisenhower’s running mate for his staunch anti-communist stance, later spearheaded détente with the Soviet Union—a policy that contradicted his earlier hardline views. Similarly, Vance’s political metamorphosis may be contingent and transactional, mirroring the pragmatic approach of the political figure he currently seeks to serve.
Interestingly, Donald Trump has not fully embraced isolationist views regarding Ukraine, stopping short of advocating for complete abandonment, even while hinting at a swift resolution to the conflict upon his potential re-election. Rumors of Mike Pompeo’s possible reappointment as Secretary of State suggest that the isolationist wing may not entirely dictate American foreign policy. The crucial question, posed by figures like Pompeo, is whether principled individuals will be weakened by political expediency, while opportunists like Vance remain adaptable chameleons, ready to shift allegiances as political winds change.
It’s noteworthy that Vance has maintained a consistent, hawkish stance on the Israel-Gaza conflict. In a May address to the Quincy Institute, a hub for bipartisan American isolationism, he articulated a perspective that, while rooted in an isolationist worldview, offered a pro-Israel stance. To avert a broader regional conflict in the Middle East, he proposed:
“The way that we get there in Israel is by combining the Abraham Accords approach with the defeat of Hamas. That gets us to a place where Israel and the Sunni nations can play a regional counterweight to Iran. We don’t want a broader regional war. We don’t want to get involved in a broader regional war. The best way to do that is to ensure that Israel, with the Sunni nations, can actually police their own region of the world.”
This statement reflects a serious and considered viewpoint, reminiscent of the earnestness Vance displayed earlier in his career. It is hoped that this seriousness will define his future actions, especially given his proximity to the highest office. Ultimately, Vance’s story should serve as an inspiration, demonstrating America’s capacity to offer opportunities to those who demonstrate the resolve to overcome challenging circumstances, steering clear of the “dark place” he once feared Trump was leading people towards.
