This opinion piece by Ohio senator J. D. Vance originally appeared in the Financial Times in February.
In it he criticizes Europe’s military ineffectiveness and inability to provide for its own security, arguing that American support has enabled European complacency, in what amounts to a wealth transfer from American taxpayers to Europe:
> In the aftermath of the cold war, European nations made deep and lasting cuts to their defence budgets. Estimates suggest the continent would have spent an additional $8.6tn on defence over 30 years had they maintained cold war levels of military expenditure. As the American defence budget nears $1tn per year, we ought to view the money Europe hasn’t spent on defence for what it really is: an implied tax on the American people to allow for the security of Europe.
He goes on to argue that the US should end aid to Ukraine, and leave it to Europeans to decide how to manage the Russian problem.
He is effectively arguing for the most consequential re-orientation of American policy toward Europe since the Second World War, one in which the US would decouple its security interests from those of Europe, and leave Europe to provide for its own defence (or not).
I bring this article up now because Donald Trump announced today that he had selected Vance to be his running mate in the 2024 election, and I think this has significant and interesting implications for both domestic American politics and foreign policy.
Vance’s personal story is inescapably tied to his politics and political brand. Born into a poor and dysfunctional household, he joined the Marine Corps after high school, then graduated summa cum laude from Ohio State with a degree in political science and philosophy, before going on to graduate Yale Law.
His 2016 memoirs, *Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis* became something of a cultural touchstone in America. In it he discussed his troubled upbringing, the cultural influence his mother’s Appalachian values had on him (though Vance was raised in Ohio, his mother hailed from piedmont Kentucky), and the crisis of despair that has overtaken many poorer regions in America.
Vance is highly unusual in contemporary America as being someone who straddles the class divide, having experienced both the poverty and lack of opportunity that afflicts large parts of the country outside the wealthy coastal enclaves and more desirable parts of major urban centers, but also overcoming adversity to obtain the credentials that qualified him to be a card carrying member of the country’s elite. It is a personal story that flatters elite myths about American “meritocracy”, and also grants Vance unique authority to speak about aspects of American society with which most highly privileged Americans have no direct experience. This no doubt goes a long way to explaining the exposure the book received, along with the fact it was published in the same year that Donald Trump stunned the establishment by winning the presidency, prompting a rush for insight into the voting preferences of poor, white Americans.
As indicated by this article, Vance’s foreign policy instincts are isolationist, and this should be a wake up call for those who complacently assume that Trump will be willing to continue America’s traditional role in the Western alliance as long as the allies pay “their fair share”. The man Trump handpicked to be one heartbeat from the presidency believes something very different.
In terms of domestic politics, Vance is an interesting hybrid of populist economics and traditional cultural values. This is an underrecognized and underserved segment of Western voters, economically marginalized people who support redistributive economic policies (like the traditional left), but also reject innovation in social policy and identity construction (like the traditional right).
This is potentially very fertile ground for political entrepreneurs like Vance, and Sahra Wagenknecht in Germany.
1 Comment
[Unpaywalled Link](https://www.ft.com/content/3c87ef13-122f-4e78-a7af-54c75c30a91d)
Submission Statement:
This opinion piece by Ohio senator J. D. Vance originally appeared in the Financial Times in February.
In it he criticizes Europe’s military ineffectiveness and inability to provide for its own security, arguing that American support has enabled European complacency, in what amounts to a wealth transfer from American taxpayers to Europe:
> In the aftermath of the cold war, European nations made deep and lasting cuts to their defence budgets. Estimates suggest the continent would have spent an additional $8.6tn on defence over 30 years had they maintained cold war levels of military expenditure. As the American defence budget nears $1tn per year, we ought to view the money Europe hasn’t spent on defence for what it really is: an implied tax on the American people to allow for the security of Europe.
He goes on to argue that the US should end aid to Ukraine, and leave it to Europeans to decide how to manage the Russian problem.
He is effectively arguing for the most consequential re-orientation of American policy toward Europe since the Second World War, one in which the US would decouple its security interests from those of Europe, and leave Europe to provide for its own defence (or not).
I bring this article up now because Donald Trump announced today that he had selected Vance to be his running mate in the 2024 election, and I think this has significant and interesting implications for both domestic American politics and foreign policy.
Vance’s personal story is inescapably tied to his politics and political brand. Born into a poor and dysfunctional household, he joined the Marine Corps after high school, then graduated summa cum laude from Ohio State with a degree in political science and philosophy, before going on to graduate Yale Law.
His 2016 memoirs, *Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis* became something of a cultural touchstone in America. In it he discussed his troubled upbringing, the cultural influence his mother’s Appalachian values had on him (though Vance was raised in Ohio, his mother hailed from piedmont Kentucky), and the crisis of despair that has overtaken many poorer regions in America.
Vance is highly unusual in contemporary America as being someone who straddles the class divide, having experienced both the poverty and lack of opportunity that afflicts large parts of the country outside the wealthy coastal enclaves and more desirable parts of major urban centers, but also overcoming adversity to obtain the credentials that qualified him to be a card carrying member of the country’s elite. It is a personal story that flatters elite myths about American “meritocracy”, and also grants Vance unique authority to speak about aspects of American society with which most highly privileged Americans have no direct experience. This no doubt goes a long way to explaining the exposure the book received, along with the fact it was published in the same year that Donald Trump stunned the establishment by winning the presidency, prompting a rush for insight into the voting preferences of poor, white Americans.
As indicated by this article, Vance’s foreign policy instincts are isolationist, and this should be a wake up call for those who complacently assume that Trump will be willing to continue America’s traditional role in the Western alliance as long as the allies pay “their fair share”. The man Trump handpicked to be one heartbeat from the presidency believes something very different.
In terms of domestic politics, Vance is an interesting hybrid of populist economics and traditional cultural values. This is an underrecognized and underserved segment of Western voters, economically marginalized people who support redistributive economic policies (like the traditional left), but also reject innovation in social policy and identity construction (like the traditional right).
This is potentially very fertile ground for political entrepreneurs like Vance, and Sahra Wagenknecht in Germany.