There is a question that I have been considering for some time now, and I have not come with answers that satisfy me.
By the description above, Vance is a manipulator. So what policies would Vance pursue if he does manage to insert a knife (metaphorical or literal) in Trump’s back?
On the one hand, it is my impression that Vance is a little more used to working in a team, and would be more sensible of the need to generate consensus and not stretch norms too much.
On the other hand his expressed positions are every bit as whacked out as Trumps, if slightly different. How much of that is performative, and how much is real? Is anything about Vance real?
I didn’t even notice the token black appointee, Scott Turner. HUD, of course (hey, it’s got ‘urban’ right there in the name.) I’m surprised he bothered this time around.
Regarding Vance: if he had even more control, I think that he’d be leaning in, even more strongly, to:
Christian nationalism
Eliminating most of the federal government, and replacing non-elected leadership in what remains of it with true believers in Christian nationalism
But, he doesn’t seem to be a particularly original thinker in this regard. He’s an acoloye/protege of Peter Thiel, and he’s a fan of the work of a guy named Curtis Yarvin, who believes that America needs to become a monarchy.
And, I agree with @needscoffee : he’s seriously lacking in actual charisma, and comes across like an alien in a human suit.
It doesn’t for me, either. It’s Good to be the Poster.
Vance is a toady supreme, to be sure. Trump handpicked the cabinet for degree of asskissing rather than competence. Only Matt Gaetz didn’t make it into office, which, more than anything else about his loathsome history, reveals what a pestilence he must be. That Congress let the rest of bunch through when even the Wall Street Journal editorial page was against revealed the sheer terror they saw in Trump’s retribution.
Nobody else puts the same fear into Congress or anybody else. Certainly not Vance. As Vice President he’s nothing but a loudmouth Kamala Harris and we saw how the country responded to her. He has no power base, no long-term relationships inside government or with the MAGA movement or the Project 2025 crowd.
Trumpism is a cult of personality; without Trump the movement will fragment around a host of wannabes. Even Trump now at his highest is running into the real world. The stock market is panicking, the bond market reeled so badly he put a pause on tariffs, the dollar is weakening internationally, countries are working together to oppose his policies, tourism from them is down, and small businesses, farmers, factory workers, and other groups are realizing that tariffs are taxes that they pay, not the importing country. If something happens to Trump in the future, that’s the country Vance will inherit. Can anyone imagine he could impose his will on that future?
I think one of us is misunderstanding. Your quote showed up but your name did not.
The people behind Project 2025 always had an agenda; they just needed a charismatic authoritarian to implement it as well as a pliant Congress. The second coming of Trump was not foretold. A few years ago it still seemed wildly unlikely. Circumstances colluded to allow him to follow the fascist playbook. If the Democrats held even one half of Congress, we’d be seeing only a fraction of the damage.
I still don’t understand this. As long as I’ve been aware of his master (and I grew up on the East coast and have been aware of him for decades), my observation is his master has no charisma whatsoever, just smarm. I’ll never understand why people say he has charisma.
Decades from now, scientists will identify the gene which made 40-ish percent of the U.S. population find Trump to be amazingly charismatic, and worthy of blind devotion. I think it’s probably something like the gene which determines if you think cilantro tastes good, or tastes like soap.
Whether Vance is a manipulator or a toady is an interesting question. In the current circumstance it’s kind of like discussing the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin - academic and interesting, but not of practical use.
However if Trump’s days upon this earth are numbered, it does become a question that we need to consider. I am inclined to feel that if he is a toady, he’s not Trump’s toady necessarily. Thiel’s toady possibly, but as Trump himself has demonstrated once he is in the office, he can’t really be controlled. Bush once said the he was the, “Decider” and was roundly mocked for it. But he was right in that he had the power to fire anyone who he disagrees with.
Vance seems to vacillate between Christian reconstructionist, and the most extreme sort of Tech Bro tendencies. Basically it seems that one day he’s Musk, and the next day he’s channeling Mike Pence, or Mike Johnson.
I have no idea which side he would come down on if he manages to get into office. Of course either one would be awful, but they would be different kinds of awful.
Vance’s MO his entire life has been “find the biggest bully in the yard and kiss his ass”, from his abusive stepfather on. If he actually becomes the biggest bully in the yard, he might actually have to develop some beliefs and values of his own. Who knows what would happen then?
Bashar al-Assad, a London ophthalmologist, was supposed to have none of the needed dictator skills, but lasted 24 years.
Hugo Chávez was supposed to be uniquely talented, but President Nicolás Maduro has been president for twelve years.
I’m getting too old to rattle off more names, but I feel that, in a lifetime of reading newspaper stories on strongman leaders, I’ve seen lots of cases where commentators say the strongman is irreplaceable, and then their supposedly unskilled replacement does about as well.
If MAGA collapses, it will be because of total policy failure, not because of a weak bench.
No one knows for sure. But Vance is closely tied in to the MAGA movement. No one else would trust him. And it is quite unusual for the successor of an elective autocratic president to desert the authoritarian movement which put them there.
I can think of one hopeful example — Taiwan’s Mr. Democracy, Lee Teng-hui, who went from vice-president in a cruel dictatorship to being a fully democratic leader. This is an extraordinary story showing what’s possible, not what’s likely.
Franco chose to have JC as a connection or continuation of Spain’s heritage. One could argue Franco was a regent while JC was waiting to be declared the actual king. Then, like any other dictator, Franco liked dictatorship and authoritarianism. And look at how JC was educated in Francoism. Franco intended for Juan Carlos to continue that system, and not turn the country into a liberal democratic monarchy. Basically, Franco took a gamble with his hand-picked successor.