Three on the Vance Selection

As I noted yesterday and stated here before, I regard J.D. Vance as one of the worst possible choices for Vice President on Donald Trump's short list.

This view is in terms of Vance's political philosophy and how that choice might affect the future direction of the Republican Party, in my estimate as a proponent of individual rights.

But what does the choice mean politically? Regarding Trump's electoral chances, my gut says probably not much: Vance is certainly red meat to the Trump base, as if they needed incentive to vote for Trump. But aside from being a competent and sane-looking alternative to Kamala Harris in the unusually important contest between running mates, he leaves persuadable non-MAGA voters in the indifferent-to-cold range.

Off the top, he's too religious (in a year in which abortion rights are an issue) and and anti-capitalistic (as a fan of central planning who collaborates with the likes of Liz Warren) to bring back anyone put off by Trump (as your author is) for those reasons.

But I am not the only kind of independent voter, and am probably not a typical one.

And then there's the question of how Vance might affect a second Trump administration. My gut says, He will help a lot, but that isn't necessarily a good thing for America. Vance has horrible political ideas and is plainly intelligent and driven enough to help actualize them.

But again, I don't hire people often.

Given that I am not a typical independent nor a seasoned manager, I'll point to three different takes on the pick and invite the reader to judge for himself.

I'll get the predictable MAGA take out of the way first. Predictably, former Trump advisor Steve Cortes ends with the following absolutely brain-dead advice: "trust that our fearless nominee, Donald Trump, has made the best possible selection."

Whether or not this reflects Cortes's own judgement, he claims that Vance brings (1) his backstory; (2) America First [sic] foreign policy; (3) media and debate skills; the (4) correct political detractors; and (5) youth and vigor to the ticket. One can argue that Kamala Harris also brings youth and vigor, so this is really four contributions. (But more on this later.)

Vance's backstory as an "outsider" mostly appeals to the base; almost anyone else who remembers the first Trump term might have hoped for a more conventional Republican. The foreign policy "contribution" is similar: It's Trump's, but makes Vance more authentic-looking to the base and there is the obvious hope that his military experience can lend credibility to the idea we should throw Europe (and maybe also Taiwan?) under the bus/make deals with despots instead of projecting strength.

The bit about having the "right" detractors is rank MAGA tribalism. The "ruling class" hates him, and that's enough. Why educated people might is dismissed out of hand.

As for debating and media skills, I've heard that Vance is underwhelming there, but we'll give it anyway: I can't imagine him being worse than Harris.

My Verdict: Vance will not strongly change anything, at least on these merits.

Next up is a critical piece on the electoral side of the pick by someone I take to be another Trumpist, Sean Trende of RealClear Politics. Two quotes capture his take, which is surprisingly close to what I thought yesterday, when Vance was announced:

What, then, does Vance really add to the mix here? On the first part, absolutely nothing. Vance's MAGA credentials are unimpeachable. From what I can tell online, the MAGA wing of the Republican Party is happy with the pick. But those voters were already voting and were voting for Trump. Vance has a good blue-collar populist story, which might have made for a good choice in the pre-2016 Republican Party. But again, the blue collar swing voters of 2012 are base Republicans this election. This is the equivalent of Mitt Romney adding Paul Ryan to his ticket, as if he needed help consolidating the small businessman vote. [bold added]

And then, after Trende notes how Vance underperformed in his recent reelection campaign, we have:

Then there are the suburbanites, whose defections in 2020 cost Trump the presidential election (and whose defections in 2022 cost Republicans control of the Senate). These voters are particularly concentrated in states like Nevada and Arizona (where supermajorities of voters live in suburbs). Vance's brand of big-spending conservatism matched with culture warrior bona fides really does nothing to allay their fears about Trump. It may actually push them further away. [bold added]

My Verdict: If anything, Trende may be underestimating Vance's potential downside, but then again, many people have short memories, so small effect still looks good on the electoral side of things.

Finally we have an interesting take that I stumbled upon via my blogroll, from the business columnist Suzanne Lucas, who judges the pick purely as a hiring manager might. Like Cortes, she offers five benefits ("hiring lessons") from the pick: (1) his different background, as someone not born into money; (2) Vance's military background; (3) Vance's past opposition to Trump; (4) Vance as the embodiment of the American Dream; and (5) Vance's youth.

Unlike with the electoral side of things, I'd count Vance's youth here because I rate him as much more competent than his Democratic counterpart. Lucas's reasons for these are all pretty sound, but regarding (a) the election and (b) the job itself, context is everything.

My takes on each are below, in list form:

1. past in poverty -- Electorally, this is a wash since Trump already appeals to the "working class." On-the-job, it will help Trump ... run the economy into the ground. Suffering from poverty and knowing what to do about it are two different things.
2. military service -- See past in poverty. Having been sent into ill-advised wars does not confer knowledge of what a rational foreign policy for America looks like, although it can certainly help sell a bad one.
3. past opposition -- As great a point as this is in the business world and in life, one must always be on the lookout in politics for someone who sticks his finger in the wind and goes with which way it's blowing. Regardless, coming around to Trump's point of view will be bad for America, regardless of Vance's level of cynicism or power-lust.
4. American Dream -- See past in poverty. If one takes Trump's success in business as a template, doing so plainly is different than understanding that protecting the freedom that makes genuine success possible is the job of government.
5. Youth -- Electorally, this gets canceled out by Harris, unless perceived competence is factored in. On the job, this could help Trump ... achieve his anti-American goals ... a lot.

My Verdict: Lucas is not wrong, but this isn't business.

Considering Lucas's column is more instructive for understanding why Vance is a good hire for his administration from Trump's standpoint. But given the context of what government is for and Trump's ignorance or indifference to that mission, Vance is a horrible pick for America, and one that should cause pro-freedom voters to reconsider the idea of voting for Trump.

Overall, I'd say I was right: Vance probably won't help or hurt Trump much in the election, but he can help Trump cause lots of damage if they get into office, by putting brains and organization behind an anti-American agenda, and being able to perpetuate the same.

-- CAV