Patrick Healy, the deputy Opinion editor, hosted an online conversation with the Times Opinion columnists Ross Douthat, David French, Michelle Goldberg and Bret Stephens to discuss Donald Trump’s choice of J.D. Vance as his running mate — why Mr. Trump picked him, how Mr. Vance could help the ticket, what’s surprising and unusual about the vice-presidential nominee, and what if anything worries our columnists about Mr. Vance.
Patrick Healy: The answer to one of the biggest questions of the presidential election has now been revealed: Donald Trump has chosen J.D. Vance as his running mate. What was the first thing that popped into your minds when you heard Trump had picked the first-term senator from Ohio and why?
Bret Stephens: My first thought was a memory: In 2016, on the eve of the election, Vance and I were guests on Fareed Zakaria’s CNN show. At the time, he was still a Never Trumper. Later, we took a walk around Columbus Circle and commiserated about the sad state of the Republican Party with Trump as its leader. Another reminder that what was once a unified anti-Trump conservative movement wound up moving in very different directions.
Ross Douthat: If elected he will be the first vice president of the United States with whom I was friends before he became a politician. That’s quite a strange feeling and one that mostly inspired me to say some prayers for him and for the country.
Michelle Goldberg: God help the people of Ukraine. As Vance told Steve Bannon, “I got to be honest with you, I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or the other.”
David French: I share your concerns about Ukraine, Michelle, and that was my first thought as well. A century from now, historians will be talking about the war in Ukraine. Trump’s choice sends a message to America’s allies, especially Ukraine, that they might find themselves facing Russia largely on their own. To the extent that Vance will have a real voice in the administration (and we should never assume that of any vice president), he’ll be pushing Trump away from Ukraine. He’ll be a China hawk, but that’s cold comfort to the Ukrainian people or to the European alliance.
Healy: My mind went to two things: the Electoral College map and the Republican Party’s future. Presidential politics boils down to getting to 270 Electoral College votes, and Vance could help Trump in the industrial Midwestern states that are those must-win “blue wall” states for President Biden. Trump-Vance will pack a wallop in Michigan, western Pennsylvania, parts of Wisconsin. And Vance strikes me as a vision pick too — offering a more fully formed and, I would argue, ideological vision for the party’s future than Trump. David, are you surprised by the pick?
French: I’m not. From the beginning of the selection process, the real question was whether Trump was going to select someone who could perhaps reach the middle or someone who would help him double down on the MAGA ethos and MAGA ideology. Trump’s obviously chosen to double down. This is the choice of a man who’s confident he’s going to win.
Stephens: I am surprised, though I shouldn’t be. From an electoral standpoint, Vance doesn’t seem to bring a lot to the ticket: Ohio is already in Trump’s corner, and Vance represents the voters who are the Trumpiest part of Trump’s base. Especially after the assassination attempt, Trump had an opportunity to widen his base geographically by choosing someone like Gov. Glenn Youngkin of Virginia, given that Trump is running only a point behind Biden there in the polling average, or culturally by choosing someone like Marco Rubio, helping to make inroads for Republicans among Hispanic voters, or ideologically by reaching out to Nikki Haley, thereby appealing to more centrist-leaning voters who thought of her as the sort of Republican they could get behind. Instead, Trump went with the guy who’ll play well at his rallies and will never cross the boss. Again, why am I surprised?
Goldberg: I’m not surprised only because everything was telegraphing this choice, including the fact that Vance’s friend Don Jr. was slated to introduce him at the Republican National Convention on Wednesday, and that the mayor of East Palestine, Ohio — the site of a toxic train derailment that Republicans accuse Biden of ignoring — is also scheduled to speak there.
Douthat: The choice had been telegraphed, but it is still a striking choice. I agree with David that the pick signals that Trump thinks he’s going to win; Vance might help him in the Rust Belt but it’s much less of a signal of outreach than, say, picking Youngkin would have been, because Vance has a more combative and polarizing persona, and it carries more political risks than picking a cipher like Gov. Doug Burgum of North Dakota. More important, though, it sends an unusually clear policy signal about Trump’s second term — indicating that on at least a subset of issues, from trade and tariffs and immigration to foreign policy, he intends to govern in a more focused and intentional way than he ever did in his first term, as a populist in full.
Healy: Ross, you recently had that fascinating in-depth interview with Vance where I felt that I was reading a far more coherent vision of conservatism and the future of the G.O.P. than anything Trump has articulated. What stood out to you the most from your conversation with Vance and what he represents for Republicans and conservatives?
Douthat: The interview tried to cover a lot of ground, because I think his personal odyssey is inherently fascinating — from writing a best-selling book about working-class dysfunction that made him the toast of the establishment to deciding that the establishment was rotten and aligning with their great enemy, Donald Trump. But for the purposes of a potential vice presidency, the most important parts of our conversation are obviously his breaks with pre-Trump G.O.P. policy orthodoxy, his anti-libertarianism on economic policy and his vision of an American empire that’s overstretched and needs to rebalance and rebuild its strength, and then his willingness to defend Trump (almost, not unto Sidney Powell territory) all the way on the attempts to challenge the results of the 2020 election.
Goldberg: There’s one point Vance made in that interview that has stuck with me: “The thing that I kept thinking about liberalism in 2019 and 2020 is that these guys have all read Carl Schmitt — there’s no law, there’s just power.” I can tell you for a fact that lots of liberals have not in fact read that infamous Nazi jurist, even if, as Jennifer Szalai wrote in a great recent piece, he has some currency in the academic left. But it’s telling that Vance imagines that liberals are operating according to Schmittian principles, in which all law derives from the leader, equal justice is a joke, and what matters is the friend/enemy distinction. It’s pure projection.
At a moment when Trump seemed likely to lose, Vance texted a former roommate that Trump would either be “a cynical asshole like Nixon” or “America’s Hitler.” But Vance is an ambitious guy, and once Trump was in power, he had good reason to hop on the MAGA train. To justify doing so, he had to convince himself that he was fighting diabolical forces, and that because his enemies betrayed liberal democratic values, he needn’t be bound by them either. It’s an ideology of Caesarism disguising itself — as all authoritarian creeds do — as self-defense.
French: The thing that stood out to me about Ross’s conversation is that Trump has impulses, whereas Vance has an ideology. He’s done more work than just about any politician in America to create something coherent out of MAGA’s concerns and MAGA’s grievances. He doesn’t just want to possess power, he wants to wield it in quite specific ways. To the extent that MAGA has ideological legs after Trump leaves the scene, it will in large part be because of Vance.
Healy: What stands out to you most about Vance — his ideas, ideology, record, history?
French: In many ways, Vance is an avatar for countless Republicans who’ve significantly changed their assessments of Trump since 2016. Trump loves it when his previous critics bend the knee, and few people have bent the knee more deeply than Vance. He’s gone from being vitriolically Never Trump to perhaps his most enthusiastic supporter in the Senate. I’ve personally known a number of Republicans who’ve made the exact same transition.
Stephens: It’s his isolationist instincts that stand out the most, and worry me the most. Vance really is one of those Republicans who think that practically the only foreign policy we need as a country is a secure, militarized southern border — and perhaps a northern one, too. He has been a vociferous critic of our support for Ukraine, making a case in the pages of The Times that reminds me of how one of his predecessors in the Senate, Robert Taft of Ohio, made the case before the Pearl Harbor attack against helping Britain defeat the Nazis. A Vance vice presidency is likely to consolidate the G.O.P.’s reversion to that disastrous pre-World War II form.
Douthat: I think Vance has more of an isolationist streak than most recent contenders for high office, but in practice I expect him to be much more of an Asia-first Republican and would-be Nixonian or George H.W. Bushian figure than a Pat Buchanan-style, “Come home, America” paleoconservative. He portrays himself as a foreign policy realist (including in our conversation) and he’s frequently couched his critiques of Biden administration policy in terms of limited U.S. resources and the need to prioritize other threats — meaning China’s threat to Taiwan above Russia’s threat to Ukraine. How that stance actually cashes out will be an open question, but that’s going to be framing of a Trump-Vance administration foreign policy: try to forge an armistice in Eastern Europe to enable the pivot to Asia that every administration since Barack Obama’s has arguably sought.
Healy: What does Vance do to help Trump win?
French: To the extent the pick matters at all, it’s a net negative for the ticket. In 2022 in Ohio, the Republican governor, Mike DeWine, won by 25 points; Vance won by only six points. Vance underperformed DeWine by almost 400,000 votes. He’s drunk deeply of MAGA grievances and the MAGA ethos. He’s the vice-presidential pick for the base, for the people who want to see revolutionary disruption in the American government. This is the pick of a very confident presidential nominee.
Goldberg: Vance does nothing to help Trump: He is loved by MAGA but no one else. He’s as demagogic as Trump but entirely lacks his dark charisma. I also imagine Vance will energize an opposition that’s in desperate need of a boost. Speaking to Ross, Vance suggested that there was a legitimate path to trying to overturn the 2020 election. He will be in every way a Trump enabler, and if Trump wins, I can’t imagine him certifying a Democratic victory in 2028.
After the assassination attempt against Trump, Vance has been trying to intimidate Democrats out of talking about the ex-president’s authoritarian tendencies, pretending that telling the truth about Trump constitutes incitement to violence. But with Vance on the ticket, Democrats are going to have to talk about how democracies devolve into systems of what political scientists call competitive authoritarianism.
French: Michelle, I’m glad you brought up his inflammatory post-assassination rhetoric. We’ve been seeing reports that Trump might be wanting to change the tone after his genuinely terrifying experience last Saturday. But Vance is the attack-dog choice. At the same time, however, he’ll take his cues from Trump, and if Trump wants him to moderate his tone, Vance will obey.
Stephens: Much as I think that Trump made a serious mistake in choosing Vance, it’s worth considering his strengths. He has a compelling life story, which he turned into a best-selling memoir. He’s smart and has had an important range of life experiences: not just his “hillbilly” upbringing, but his time in the Marine Corps, including service in the Iraq war, his Yale Law School degree, his stint in venture capital. He fared well in his Senate debates with Tim Ryan, a capable Democratic opponent, and beat him handily. He speaks for millions of Americans who feel forgotten, disdained, condescended to or despised by the proverbial coastal elites.
And he’s young: He turns 40 next month. It will underscore the idea that the Trump-Vance ticket represents the future, while Biden and Kamala Harris speak for the past.
Douthat: You would assume that Vance could have upside for the Trump ticket with some (not all) persuadable voters in Pennsylvania and Michigan. It’s also possible that Trump himself intends to go further in his own outreach to swing voters: He already dialed back the ideological conservatism in his party platform, he’s promising a more unifying convention speech after the assassination attempt (we’ll see), and you could imagine a world where he spends the next few months promising ideological flexibility and Vance helps him mostly by being more right-wing and reassuring parts of the MAGA world that Trump isn’t going wobbly. (The traditional V.P. role, in a sense — though there are parts of movement conservatism that strongly dislike everything Vance represents, so his reassurance won’t sell everywhere.)
I agree that Vance’s youth and smarts help make a contrast with the Biden-Harris ticket. And there’s even a way in which his having been a prominent Never Trumper could help him sell Trump to others, by saying, “Look, I used to hate him too; here’s what you’re missing.”
Fundamentally, though, I don’t think this is the pick you make if you’re just trying to add votes to your coalition. It’s a pick that sets governing priorities, a pick that probably reflects Trump’s personal preferences and comfort levels, and a pick made by a candidate who felt that his last vice president was foisted on him and this time he’ll have someone he likes and someone who likes him.
Healy: What do you think a Vance-Harris debate might be like?
French: To the extent that Vance can help Trump at all, it will be at the debate. Vance might be extreme, but he’s also a very effective communicator. He makes the policy case for MAGA far more comprehensively than Trump can, and he’ll be ready to answer questions about his Never Trump past.
Stephens: David makes an important point. Vance is sharp, shrewd, quick on his feet. And his debate will count more than most vice-presidential debates do, because many people will think that Harris will eventually be president if she and Biden win.
Goldberg: He’s smart and cutting, so imagine he’ll hold his own. But Kamala Harris — assuming she’s still the V.P. and not the Democratic presidential nominee — will enjoy reminding people, over and over, that Vance argued against exceptions to abortion bans for rape and incest victims.
Vance has a particularly bitter contempt for women without children; he’s railed against “childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable too.” It will be interesting to see if Harris can draw his misogyny out for all to see.
Healy: How is Vance like Trump — and not like Trump? This is a running mate who once scorned the former president.
French: Don’t underestimate the power of his personal story. Trump was born with an immense amount of power and privilege. Vance was born into an incredibly challenging family situation, and he showed tremendous grit and determination to reach the Senate and now the vice-presidential nomination. People connected to his book, “Hillbilly Elegy,” for good reasons. He’s overcome a lot in his life, and when he highlights his story, a lot of working-class voters will identify his past and see themselves in him. He’s got a much more relatable story than Trump, he’s younger than Trump, and he’s far more informed about policy than Trump.
Goldberg: They’re similar in that they’re both somewhat ideologically labile, and both seem to simultaneously hate and resent traditional elites and long for their respect. But Vance is clearly more disciplined and methodical.
Stephens: Michelle makes an important point: Vance, like Trump, represents the same reflexive disdain for the allegedly soft and self-satisfied elites typified by people like Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. In that sense Vance and Trump have more in common with the brooding resentments of Richard Nixon than they do with the sunny optimism of Ronald Reagan or the noblesse oblige instincts of George H.W. Bush.
Douthat: The expectation will be that Vance will win any debate on points, since Harris has her well-earned reputation for “Veep”-like stumbles and he’s very fluent and policy-oriented and, as Michelle says, disciplined. I think the main question will be the mood he brings to the debate: Does he seem too dark and mordant and apocalyptic (a vibe that all bearded conservative populists carry with them), or can he be not just sharper than Harris but come across as an optimist as well?
Healy: One dynamic for any Trump V.P. is, of course, navigating Trump himself. Should he win, Trump will automatically be a lame duck president, and his vice president will be as close to an heir apparent as American politics usually get. What has Vance shown us about his ability to navigate Trump? And do you see any rough waters for him?
Stephens: I’m glad you think Trump would automatically be a lame duck if he wins and won’t set about repealing the 22nd Amendment!
Douthat: Several of us have talked about Vance’s loyalty to Trump. In that sense he’s a lower-risk pick for Trump than someone like Youngkin, who’s never fully committed himself to a MAGA worldview. But Vance also, much more than some of the others who might have received the nomination, has a real identity and persona and celebrity that’s separate from his new boss. There are lots of people on the right who like Vance for being Vance, the young populist who turned his back on the liberal elite, and who are excited for this pick in a way that nobody was going to be excited about, say, Burgum or Elise Stefanik. And that means that as a Trumpian second term wears on, Vance will have a stronger spotlight on him, a bigger cheering section (and more enemies) than another vice president might have had — which could create certain tensions with Trump and within his administration that you wouldn’t have with a different, more fully Trump-dependent pick.
Goldberg: People clash with Trump to the extent that they’re not willing to completely subordinate themselves to his will. Maybe Vance will eventually discover that he has interests separate from Trump. But he could just as easily become a Stephen Miller-type figure, existing wholly in relation to the source of his power.
Stephens: Vance will soon find, if he hasn’t already, that Trump will not only demand complete fealty but also insist on a fealty that involves self-abasement and a willingness to do anything for the boss, including violating his oath of office. Then again, the political prize that awaits Vance if the ticket wins in November might be worth the humiliation. I mean, to borrow the line from “A Man for All Seasons”: “It might profit a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world … but for Wales!”
Goldberg: I have been referring to this quote for eight years, but I think we’ve seen that, when it comes to Trump, a lot of people are willing to give their souls for even less than Wales!
The post ‘This Is the Pick of a Very Confident Presidential Nominee’: Four Columnists Size Up J.D. Vance appeared first on New York Times.