J.D. Vance, Leftist?

[SkyBubble]

https://x.com/Actsout/status/2091975371604594981

I'm getting a lot of scathing pushback calling JD Vance a leftist so I'm laying out why it's true in a straight-forward, semi-nuanced way. It is not me making the claim, the following is what Vance has personally stated he believes in.

1. Vance calls himself a post-liberal. Post-liberalism rejects free-market capitalism and individualism in favor of the government securing economic and social well-being (social welfare). The counter-argument is to recognize the responsibility of individuals for their own welfare (food, shelter, well-being).

2. Vance says he believes in Hamiltonian economics. Hamiltonian economics has shared commonality with modern left-of-center ideology primarily through its advocacy for an active, interventionist federal government that shapes the economy rather than letting the free market determine the direction of markets.

3. Vance has stated he agrees with the politics of Huey Long, Louisiana's leftist governor of the 1930's. Huey Long functioned as a left-wing populist whose economic policies focused heavily on wealth redistribution, even to the point of proposing heavy-handed capital taxation on personal fortunes in order to distribute individual earnings to those who hadn't earned what they received.

These 3 points are objectively accurate about what JD Vance believes and what conservatives fight against. To protest the reality of Vance's beliefs is to reject stolid truth.

 

[Saint_Ann]

https://x.com/Actsout/status/2091975371604594981

I'm getting a lot of scathing pushback calling JD Vance a leftist so I'm laying out why it's true in a straight-forward, semi-nuanced way. It is not me making the claim, the following is what Vance has personally stated he believes in.

1. Vance calls himself a post-liberal. Post-liberalism rejects free-market capitalism and individualism in favor of the government securing economic and social well-being (social welfare). The counter-argument is to recognize the responsibility of individuals for their own welfare (food, shelter, well-being).

2. Vance says he believes in Hamiltonian economics. Hamiltonian economics has shared commonality with modern left-of-center ideology primarily through its advocacy for an active, interventionist federal government that shapes the economy rather than letting the free market determine the direction of markets.

3. Vance has stated he agrees with the politics of Huey Long, Louisiana's leftist governor of the 1930's. Huey Long functioned as a left-wing populist whose economic policies focused heavily on wealth redistribution, even to the point of proposing heavy-handed capital taxation on personal fortunes in order to distribute individual earnings to those who hadn't earned what they received.

These 3 points are objectively accurate about what JD Vance believes and what conservatives fight against. To protest the reality of Vance's beliefs is to reject stolid truth.

I haven't decided yet if Vance is good or evil. Whether he's a polished turd or an industrial diamond. Does he have a power base or would he have to play within the rules of the system. The trouble with that is, the system is changing. The world is changing.

Maybe he's an alien. Lol.

 

[DeluxAuto]

He's a pudgy beardo married to an immigrant and he looks like he listens to self improvement podcasts.

So, probably.

 

[eric_erosfan]

https://x.com/Actsout/status/2091975371604594981

I'm getting a lot of scathing pushback calling JD Vance a leftist so I'm laying out why it's true in a straight-forward, semi-nuanced way. It is not me making the claim, the following is what Vance has personally stated he believes in.

1. Vance calls himself a post-liberal. Post-liberalism rejects free-market capitalism and individualism in favor of the government securing economic and social well-being (social welfare). The counter-argument is to recognize the responsibility of individuals for their own welfare (food, shelter, well-being).

2. Vance says he believes in Hamiltonian economics. Hamiltonian economics has shared commonality with modern left-of-center ideology primarily through its advocacy for an active, interventionist federal government that shapes the economy rather than letting the free market determine the direction of markets.

3. Vance has stated he agrees with the politics of Huey Long, Louisiana's leftist governor of the 1930's. Huey Long functioned as a left-wing populist whose economic policies focused heavily on wealth redistribution, even to the point of proposing heavy-handed capital taxation on personal fortunes in order to distribute individual earnings to those who hadn't earned what they received.

These 3 points are objectively accurate about what JD Vance believes and what conservatives fight against. To protest the reality of Vance's beliefs is to reject stolid truth.

I mean Vance thought Trump was Hitler at one point and then became Hitler's VP. So you have to ask when did he say all these things?

 

[Saint_Ann]

He's a pudgy beardo married to an immigrant and he looks like he listens to self improvement podcasts.

So, probably.

You hate fat people. You hate bearded people. You hate immigrants. You hate people trying to better themselves. You must be a democrat.

 

[DeluxAuto]

You hate fat people. You hate bearded people. You hate immigrants. You hate people trying to better themselves. You must be a democrat.

Ma'am, this is an Arby's.

 

[DeluxAuto]

I mean Vance thought Trump was Hitler at one point and then became Hitler's VP. So you have to ask when did he say all these things?

Around the same time Lil Marco said trump would never lead the Republicans.

 

[Saint_Ann]

Around the same time Lil Marco said trump would never lead the Republicans.

The entire democrat party thought Biden was of his right mind and Harris was smart enough to be president. The whole fucking party. Lol.

 

[DeluxAuto]

BDS suffering twat ^^

 

[Saint_Ann]

BDS suffering twat ^^

^^^^
Still thinks Biden has a brain left. Lol.

 

[SimonDoom]

I think JD Vance is something of a cypher. He's a shapeshifter who alters his views to gain political advantage. One minute hie calls Trump Hitler and the next he's his biggest supporter.

At the moment, I think his views could best be described as "right-wing populist." He's not a Reagan conservative, but his social views are conservative, so he's not a leftist.

Hamilton was not in any sense a "leftist." He believed in an active government (by his day's standards -- his idea of big government would be minimalist by today's standards), but in service of essentially conservative ends, such as the establishment of a sound financial/banking system. He wasn't interested in things like redistribution of the wealth or regulation of the economy for the benefit of the common man.

Once again, things change. I totally disagree with the OP's concept that conservatism is a fixed set of principles over time. On the contrary, it changes. In the year 1896 the Republicans, widely seen as the conservatives, were ardent supporters of tariffs and the Democrats, widely seen as the liberals, opposed them. Republicans dropped their support of tariffs only much later, after World War 2. Support for tariffs is not a "leftist" position.

 

[icanhelp1]

I think JD Vance is something of a cypher. He's a shapeshifter who alters his views to gain political advantage. One minute hie calls Trump Hitler and the next he's his biggest supporter.

At the moment, I think his views could best be described as "right-wing populist." He's not a Reagan conservative, but his social views are conservative, so he's not a leftist.

Hamilton was not in any sense a "leftist." He believed in an active government (by his day's standards -- his idea of big government would be minimalist by today's standards), but in service of essentially conservative ends, such as the establishment of a sound financial/banking system. He wasn't interested in things like redistribution of the wealth or regulation of the economy for the benefit of the common man.

Once again, things change. I totally disagree with the OP's concept that conservatism is a fixed set of principles over time. On the contrary, it changes. In the year 1896 the Republicans, widely seen as the conservatives, were ardent supporters of tariffs and the Democrats, widely seen as the liberals, opposed them. Republicans dropped their support of tariffs only much later, after World War 2. Support for tariffs is not a "leftist" position.

https://www.gilderlehrman.org/histo...ce/hamiltons-report-subject-manufactures-1791

Interesting views of our forefathers, lots of similarities with today's politician.

Hamilton’s Report on the Subject of Manufactures, 1791​

When George Washington became president in 1789, he appointed Alexander Hamilton as his secretary of the Treasury. Hamilton’s vision for the economic foundation of the United States included three main programs: 1) the federal assumption of state debts, 2) the creation of a Bank of the United States, and 3) support for the new nation’s emerging industries. After the first two parts of his plan had been accepted, he presented the third part to Congress in his Report on the Subject of Manufactures in December 1791. Through high tariffs designed to protect American industry from foreign competition, government bounties and subsidies, and internal improvements and transportation, Hamilton hoped to break Britain’s manufacturing hold on the United States.

The most eloquent opposition to Hamilton’s proposals came from Thomas Jefferson, Washington’s secretary of state, who believed that the growth of manufacturing threatened the values of an agrarian way of life. Hamilton’s vision of America’s future directly challenged Jefferson’s ideal of a nation of farmers maintaining personal freedom through landownership. Jefferson feared factory workers would be manipulated by their employers, who would make it impossible for them to think and act as independent citizens.

Although Jefferson and his followers successfully painted Hamilton as an elitist promoter of a deferential social order and an admirer of monarchical Britain, in fact Hamilton offered a remarkably modern economic vision based on investment, industry, and expanded commerce. Most strikingly, it was an economic vision with no place for slavery. Before the 1790s, the American economy, in both North and South, was tied to a transatlantic system of slavery. A member of New York’s first anti-slavery society, Hamilton wanted to reorient the American economy.

 

[SimonDoom]

Here's what Russell Kirk himself said in the prologue to his Ten Principles of Conservatism:

The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata. It is almost true that a conservative may be defined as a person who thinks himself such. The conservative movement or body of opinion can accommodate a considerable diversity of views on a good many subjects, there being no Test Act or Thirty-Nine Articles of the conservative creed.

"Market economic theory" is not the sine qua non of conservatism. For a few decades, mainly because of Barry Goldwater and, more importantly, Ronald Reagan, conservatism became identified with market economic theory, but that appears to be changing.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Populist and isolationist are the two words that I use to characterize Vance. Those political leanings do overlap with policies that are associated with the left side of the aisle. At the same time, he’s to the right on social issues.

He’s definitely not a conservative in my opinion, and definitely not my first choice by any stretch to represent the GOP ticket in 2028.

 

[badbabysitter]

Populist and isolationist are the two words that I use to characterize Vance. Those political leanings do overlap with policies that are associated with the left side of the aisle. At the same time, he’s to the right on social issues.

He’s definitely not a conservative in my opinion, and definitely not my first choice by any stretch to represent the GOP ticket in 2028.

Isolationism is a Democrat thing, not a leftist thing..it's one of the leftovers from pre-Southern Strategy days.

Populism exists in equal measure on both sides of the left right spectrum; the commonality between the two being the "elites'. The left wing aspect about that being 'overthrowing" the ' elite' structure and replacing it ostensibly with thier own ' equal" system. Communism and Maoism promising some sort of workers paradise where all are the same but ending up with group think and inability to adapt

Populism on the right is all about the "elite" and others being "enemies". It becomes a very us versus them mentality, where issues are always being blamed on the ' other' for their woes and if only we could get rid of these corrupting elements we could go back to a golden age. Fascism and Nazism are classic examples of this, but these kind of government always fail too because there must always be enemies or their regime falls apart

 

[Chernosoth]

The 2028 nominee is likely to be another Truman, an ordinary party hack riding a populist's coattails.

 

[YDB95]

The 2028 nominee is likely to be another Truman, an ordinary party hack riding a populist's coattails.

If s/he also turns out to be half the fighter Truman was, I'll take it!

You DO know why Strom Thurmond led the walk-out of the 1948 Democratic convention, don't you? A reporter asked him why he hadn't done the same at any of FDR's conventions when Roosevelt had also supported civil rights. Ol' Strom's answer: "Because Truman really means it." He was right: Truman integrated the military and called for early versions of what eventually became the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as early as 1946.

 

[HisArpy]

Populist and isolationist are the two words that I use to characterize Vance. Those political leanings do overlap with policies that are associated with the left side of the aisle. At the same time, he’s to the right on social issues.

He’s definitely not a conservative in my opinion, and definitely not my first choice by any stretch to represent the GOP ticket in 2028.

My main objection to Vance is that he appears to be too soft for the job of commander in chief. Whether he is or isn't, isn't the point. It's that he appears to be too soft. This will make any campaign for President a struggle session which the D's will exploit.

Rubio has come into his own, like DeSantis did after being elected governor and realizing that it's not a sinecure. What I don't know is if Rubio is sufficiently electable because of his past uniparty participation.

 

[DeluxAuto]

My main objection to Vance is that he appears to be too soft for the job of commander in chief. Whether he is or isn't, isn't the point. It's that he appears to be too soft. This will make any campaign for President a struggle session which the D's will exploit.

Rubio has come into his own, like DeSantis did after being elected governor and realizing that it's not a sinecure. What I don't know is if Rubio is sufficiently electable because of his past uniparty participation.

Private Bone Spurs is weakest president in our history.

 

[Chernosoth]

Regardless of what the next candidates and the next president believes, there is inevitability of what the nation must do to survive. Populists and centrists are probably OK with meeting that inevitability.

 

[LLCox]

fuck Vance with a couch.

 

[rgraham666]

I think JD Vance is something of a cypher. He's a shapeshifter who alters his views to gain political advantage. One minute hie calls Trump Hitler and the next he's his biggest supporter.

At the moment, I think his views could best be described as "right-wing populist." He's not a Reagan conservative, but his social views are conservative, so he's not a leftist.

Hamilton was not in any sense a "leftist." He believed in an active government (by his day's standards -- his idea of big government would be minimalist by today's standards), but in service of essentially conservative ends, such as the establishment of a sound financial/banking system. He wasn't interested in things like redistribution of the wealth or regulation of the economy for the benefit of the common man.

Once again, things change. I totally disagree with the OP's concept that conservatism is a fixed set of principles over time. On the contrary, it changes. In the year 1896 the Republicans, widely seen as the conservatives, were ardent supporters of tariffs and the Democrats, widely seen as the liberals, opposed them. Republicans dropped their support of tariffs only much later, after World War 2. Support for tariffs is not a "leftist" position.

'Conservative principles', like most principles, are both absolute and endlessly mutable.

The important part of any set of principles is which side of this question they answer. Are they a guideline to be a better person or an excuse to be a dick to other human beings?

 

[SimonDoom]

'Conservative principles', like most principles, are both absolute and endlessly mutable.

The important part of any set of principles is which side of this question they answer. Are they a guideline to be a better person or an excuse to be a dick to other human beings?

Not sure I'd agree with looking at it that way. Your last question is a question about moral principles, not political principles. They're too entirely different things. Morality is about how I act. Politics is about the order that governs all people. I may believe certain things are right or wrong but not want the political order to compel others to or prohibit others from doing them. And in politics, I don't really care what people's motives are. A political order is right or wrong regardless of why somebody believes in it. I care about results and processes, not intentions.

 

[Bray123]

Private Bone Spurs is weakest president in our history.

He's a weak person's vision of a strong person.

Throwing tantrumps at every opportunity, whining at the opposition, giving childish nicknames, threatening retaliation against people who point out his corruption is not what a strong & stable person does.