JD Vance

Jul 17, 2024

I wanted to know more than surface level information about JD Vance and I assume many of you do now as well. I mention it later, but I will reference it here as well, if you want to understand my view of ‘America First’ read the article “American Victory”. I put this quote from George Washington’s farewell address because it sums up the issue we have in this country in regards to foreign entanglements.

“A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils…And it gives ambitious, corrupted or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without Odium, sometimes even with popularity…” — George Washington, Farewell Address 1796

General

I was not looking for this pick, I wanted Vivek or a dream pick more aligned with my personal values like Thomas Massie or Rand Paul. As I have said before, Trump hasn’t yet earned my vote and there were some picks for VP that would have guaranteed I voted for someone else. While I heard some soundbites from Vance that were ‘good’, I also found aspects that I wholly reject.

Disclosure: The book links in this article are Amazon affiliate links, meaning that at no additional cost to you, I may receive a commission if you click through and make a purchase.

When researching this article I came across several articles Vance himself wrote. This is a big plus in my book and something that I believe should be a requirement of any who hold public office. I have been reading the Anti-Federalist Papers & the Constitutional Convention Debates and becoming increasingly unimpressed and angry with our small word using morons in office. While his articles don’t reach that level, it is far better than the soundbites and 10 second slogans we get from most politicians. That said, there is a wide range of quality in his articles. His ‘anti-Ukraine war’ article is great with a lot of data to support his claims. Other topics, he gives an article but with much more surface level information or completely devoid of data (still better than sound bites, but only a bit).

Foreign Policy

Warmonger or Isolationist?

“We need to make sure that the people who have made catastrophic mistakes at the very least have to apologize for it before they advocate for the next catastrophic mistake for the next generation,”

“Iraq was all about freedom, liberty, and democracy, bringing the American way of life to Iraq, and yet what we actually got out of it was Iran becoming even more powerful than they were four years ago,” [1]

“And it’s time to send a message to the world that America is the arsenal of democracy, but we cannot do that unless you get out and stop the focus on Ukraine.”

“we might be able to make enough weapons to be more of a positive force in the world”[2]

Vance is initially a bit hard to pin down on foreign policy, he says a LOT of the right things but he does not apply his logic consistently. He can recognize our forever wars and their visible & hidden costs, yet he still refers to ‘weapon making’ as a “positive force” in the world. As I said in other articles, we need to stop making enemies and we have to stop fighting on behalf of other nations. Vance falls short on foreign policy because he refuses to put America before ALL other nations.

NATO

This video[3], is from his speech/interview in Munich, Feb 2024. He and I are aligned on the inability for the US to maintain its empire, he doesn’t use those words but he says it, more or less. He doesn’t want to “abandon” NATO but he wants Europe to play a larger role in their own defense. He correctly points out the lack of deterrence that Europe itself poses. He states we “live in a world of scarcity” and the “west does not make enough weapons”. He is 100% correct, I wrote about this in America’s Waning Power. In another interview he again points out that French & Germans are not “doing their fare share in their own backyard”[2]. The theme seems pretty consistent.

Ukraine

“Mr. Biden has failed to articulate even basic facts about what Ukraine needs and how this aid will change the reality on the ground.” — JD Vance

Vance was against the Ukraine aid package, his chief argument (from the Munich video) being ‘its not an issue of money, its an issue of munitions’. He is right, it is manpower and munitions, two things Ukraine cannot compete with. Vance stated that this will end in “some negotiated peace” [3]. I argued in my other articles that our foreign endeavors need to be SMART, not open ended chaos. So this at least surface level aligns with that.

Looking at Vance’s April 12, 2024 article, ‘The Math on Ukraine Doesn’t Add Up’, Vance further backs up his claims with facts and figures related to the war. Summarizing, the US doesn’t make enough munitions to overcome Russian advantage & the Ukrainians cannot compete on manpower. He make a solid argument and backs it up. He ends with the call to speak with Russia and ‘broker for peace’.

Asia

“They’re [China] focused on how strong we actually are, and to be strong enough to push back against the Chinese, we’ve got to focus there, and right now, we’re stretched too thin.” JDVance

“The thing that we need to prevent more than anything is a Chinese invasion of Taiwan….It would be catastrophic for this country. It would decimate our entire economy. It would throw this country into a Great Depression.” [1]

“get ourselves in a position where we don’t have to rely on the Chinese and the Taiwanese in the first place.” [4] October 2022

on CHIPS act :
“It’s a great piece of legislation….We [have] just got to go much further, so we don’t have to defend island countries if it’s not in our core national interest.”

The correct position here is that we don’t want to be involved in Taiwan, we don’t want to have to fight (and lose against) China for computer chips. There are two aspects to this, first, commit to building more here in the states, consider it ‘defense spending’ if need be. Second, do not cross from ‘frenemy to enemy’ with China. They rely heavily on trade with us, if they decide to ‘take Taiwan’, we still should be able to trade if that is in the best interest of the United States. I am not willing to trade American lives for Taiwanese chip manufacturers.

“Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand: neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce but forcing nothing; establishing with powers so disposed—in order to give to trade a stable course,” — George Washington’s farewell address

Israel

“But our national security interests can be — and often are — separate from our economic interests. The notion that we should prolong a bloody and gruesome war because it’s been good for American business is grotesque. We can and should rebuild our industrial base without shipping its products to a foreign conflict.”

The above quote legitimately makes me excited about Vance and the only thing that ruins that excitement is that he explicitly advocates for an ‘israel exception’ to ALL of his America First rhetoric. He openly calls for stronger actions against Iran and he lauds the failed Abraham accords[5] (which led to Hamas’ Al-Aqsa Flood) .

"A lot of people recognize that we need to do something with Iran—but not these weak little bombing runs. If you're going to punch the Iranians, you punch them hard.”[5]

Everything about his stances on israel & the middle east are counter to what he says about the rest of the world. He complains about the ‘forever wars’ in Iraq & Afghanistan but refuses to acknowledge we were in Iraq for ISRAEL. Additionally, Iran is NOT Iraq. America will not win a war against Iran(A Wider War Iran) and engaging in such a war would probably destroy israel (Double or Nothing). Before you get all up in arms, know what American Victory actually is, the preservation of AMERICAN life, liberty & property and read the other articles written on the situation in the Middle East.

Why Not Israel

Israel has been a source for violence and an obstacle to peace since its inception. The land theft it is based on is un-American. USMC General Smedley Butler tried warning us in ‘War is a Racket’ of the power of the military industrial complex in 1935, yet we didn’t listen. When support for zionism was presented as a source for constant conflict in the middle east, the MIC ensured it was pushed through. This has led to the racket becoming more corrupt and more in the open than ever before. I wrote about it here in ‘War is STILL a Racket’. In short, the zionists are the golden goose for the military industrial complex. The AIPAC people are pushing for ‘peace’ elsewhere because as Vance accurately argues, we cannot support multiple wars and they (israel) want our support (money, munition and lives). Again, support of israel is not supporting American Victory.

Money & Economy

“For two decades, while America has consumed much and made little, there has been no better industry than moving fake currency from one location to another.”[6]

“dollar as the reserve currency has benefits, but it has downsides for American manufacturers…good thing is, things are cheaper, but its bad for exporters” [2]

“we export dollars, don’t export nearly as much as we used to”[2]

"I'm not philosophically against raising taxes on anybody…Raising middle class taxes, I don't like that idea, for obvious reasons”

I like when anyone calls the dollar ‘fake currency’. He seems to have a better grasp on economics/money than a lot of politicians but, that is a REALLY low bar. He should follow Thomas Massie’s lead and read the Bitcoin Standard. I don’t support raising taxes on anyone and believe they should be lowered/eliminated. I am ok with tariffs IF they replace income taxes.

He is opposed to ‘non-productive brain drain’. Meaning, he doesn’t want talent and skill wasted on ‘social media’ luring people in for ad spend [7] & he has reportedly said the same regarding finance. Oddly enough, China recently enacted a policy to combat this as well, they implemented income caps on the financial sector [8]. Vance is more pro-union than many Republicans and sees tariffs as a means to reinvigorate American manufacturing[9].

Overall, he isn’t focusing enough on what is causing the issues he takes note of. He is chasing symptoms and trying to treat symptoms while the root cause dates back to 1913 and America’s worst President Woodrow Wilson. This is when we got the federal reserve & the income tax (among other awful things). The federal reserve effectively robs the wealth of the middle class through inflation. I recommend reading “When Money Dies” which covers collapse of the German mark after WW1 as an example of how inflation steals wealth.

1st Amendment

“These guys have the right to peacefully protest, even if we criticize the message. They do not have the right to set up tent cities on our public spaces and turn our cities into garbage dumps. That is what I think we should not allow, and I think the police should be able to handle that job pretty easily.” Vance

I’d argue that civil disobedience and protesting by its very nature includes ‘occupying’ areas. While he (rightfully) supports the January 6th protestors trespassing in the federal building, he is opposed to college students ‘occupying’ campuses. If they set up on bridge or on streets I might agree to some degree, but setting up on the campus you are protesting isn’t some grand offense. This isn’t nearly as bad a take as some republicans who have no loyalty to nor understanding of the Constitution.

Second Amendment

“I think the red flag laws, in particular, they certainly are a slippery slope. They also don’t solve the problem of gun violence.” [10]

“These restrictions will make it harder for law-abiding Ohioans to exercise their Second Amendment rights and neither will have even a small effect on gun violence in our country.”

Vance seems Republican on guns. He referred to bump stocks as a ‘fake problem’ and that Schumer’s anti-bumpstock bill would “end up just inhibiting the rights of law-abiding Americans”. He isn’t wrong here but even in his article in the Columbus Dispatch, he really isn’t proposing anything to help Americans fight the infringements that already exist. I expect at a minimum a federal push for Constitutional carry that was floated when Trump was first elected (we should also repeal ‘gun free’ schools).

Immigration

“we don’t have a country anymore if we don’t get control of that border…” Vance

Vance asked Powell regarding how immigration impacts inflation, specifically housing inflation. He mentions the downward pressure on wages immigration has and implies that without immigration, wages would increase and “those on the sideline” would enter the workforce. He additionally mentioned the impact on hospital service & school services [11]. He advocates for deportation, in some instances “all who came illegally” in others he states ‘start with the criminals’ , not sure if he is implying to go for all after the criminals or not.

I want to point out the distinction between legal immigration and ILLEGAL immigration. Newsweek (and I’m assuming others) surfaced this as a ‘gotcha’ where Vance stated (in 2010), "Border security is a good start, but if we plan to control the border, then we must also plan to massively increase the number of legal migrants allowed into the country.". This isn’t contradictory you can support more legal immigration and less illegal immigration. I actually, at some level at least, support this stance. I don’t know about “massively increasing” but streamlining the legal immigration process would reduce illegal immigration. Vance did officially abandon this position and called it “a stupid opinion from 15 years ago”.

Family

This isn’t really a ‘government’ issue outside of some vague proposals to encourage more families to have kids. High level, he thinks of marriage as “sacred” as opposed to a simple “contract” [12] and believes kids suffer as a result of divorce. While I agree, kids suffer in divorce, I think it is impossible to prove that kids would be happier if the parents in unhappy/abusive relationships stayed together. I could see him pushing for tax breaks etc to ‘encourage’ families to have kids.

Abortion

"It's not whether a woman should be forced to bring a child to term…It's whether a child should be allowed to live…” — Vance when asked about exceptions to abortion for Rape & incest.

Vance was strongly anti abortion by most standards though recently he seems to have accepted ‘states rights’ approach to it that Trump has been promoting. Ohio explicitly voted for abortion[13] and nationally it has been seen as something that has cost Republicans since the overturning of Roe v Wade. Vance additionally voiced support for the accessibility of abortion drugs[14] .

Kristen Welker : “But just to be clear: You support mifepristone being accessible?”

Vance: “Yes, Kristen, I do,”

With that shift he has received pushback from Catholic groups (Vance converted to Catholicism in 2019)[15]. C.J. Doyle from the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts said “This tawdry episode informs us that Vance has no principles, at least none that aren’t for sale, and the asking price is cheap,” [14].

Drugs

Vance’s mother had drug addiction issues and I think this makes the opioid problem more personal to him than many other issues. In an interview with Meet the Press [16], He talks here about working to stop the ‘demand side’ of drug use. He points towards families with ‘stable families and income’ having less issues than others. He then calls “treatment a major source of the story”. On the supply side, he states the below:

“I want to empower the President of the United States, whether that’s a Democrat or Republican, to use the power of the U.S. military to go after these drug cartels”

On China he advocates the following stance “If you don’t stop sending fentanyl precursors to Mexico and to our own ports of entry, we’re going to really penalize you guys economically."

Vance is against legalization but supportive of medically assisted treatment (not sure what that means exactly). He didn’t jump straight to 1990s anti-drug rhetoric, so there can be some room to work there. Marijuana seems like a low importance issue to him[17]. He complained of the smell of weed on the streets when out with kids, not an uncommon complaint (those in/near cities know!)

His stance seems ‘ok’ in comparison to many Republicans, but not great. I believe weed should be legal along with most classes of drugs. The regulation of such drugs would prevent overdoses and drain the money from cartels without committing troops. One of these days I’ll have time for that article, but in the short term, just look at alcohol during prohibition vs after.

Other issues

Project 2025

Vance has stated that it has some “good ideas in there” and has some ties with Heritage Foundation and its founder[18] . Heritage foundation is behind project 2025 so I imagine that this will carry more weight than if Trump had picked someone else. I am working on skim-reading the document but it is ~900 pages long. At a glance, I liked the smaller government aspects (it has a section on the Federal Reserve too), but foreign policy part was way too hawkish. A full review will be out in the next couple weeks if it still seems relevant.

The Trump Flip

From ‘never Trumper’ to Trump’s pick for VP. The swing from vehemently anti Trump to Trump’s VP is pretty large. Alone I am ok with this, people are allowed to and should change their mind when presented with new information. However, along with the other inconsistencies it again brings up the question of authenticity. Its something I am not decided on yet regarding Vance but it is definitely something he is going to have to work to prove.

“Inside” Opinion

This article from the Columbus dispatch says that Vance “isn’t ready” and Trump had “far more credible options, including Sen. Marco Rubio and Gov. Doug Burgum”. Personally, either of those choices and Trump would have ZERO chance of getting my vote. I wholly reject the concept of career politicians, if you are unemployable outside of government you should remain unemployed (also covered in ‘War is STILL a Racket’.

Conclusion

Vance has shown himself to be ‘flexible’, what is hard, if not impossible, to determine is whether his flexibility comes from a ‘sincere’ place. If he aims to better represent his constituents or learned something new then great! If however this is just what he views as a ‘path to success’ then he is no better than others and the words of the C.J. Doyle above should have been our warning.

Zionism is the thing that ruins JD Vance for me. Without it he checks a lot of boxes. That last stumbling block undoes a lot of good and puts the sincerity of his positions into further question. There is a glimmer of hope, he had refused, despite his AIPAC handlers demanding otherwise, to vote in favor of the Ukraine/Israel/Taiwan aid bill. His position wasn’t good, he simply wanted to vote separately to enthusiastically approve the israel aid while blocking Ukraine aid. Still, it shows some spark of truly being America First. If he wants me to believe him I need to see his Ukraine-style America First policy applied universally. Again, for me Vivek was the better choice (for multiple reasons), the key difference is that Vivek had called for us to end aid to Israel as well. With that apparently costly stance, Vivek proved to me that he is SINCERELY America First.

I am still not sold on Trump/Vance. Vance isn’t really ‘great’ on anything, he is better than most Republicans but that is not saying much. In short, Vance is FAR from the worst possible choice by Trump (looking at you Nikki Haley). Of those floated by Trump, Vance might have been the 2nd best choice after Vivek. I don’t think Vance ‘hurt’ Trump’s chances but I’m not convinced he is helping much either.

Ken Klippenstein

wrote an article around a recently leaked dossier on Vance. He is banned on X at the moment for sharing information already publicly leaked.