J.D. Vance Turned an Inspiring Personal Story Into an Unsatisfying Political Sales Pitch
If voting was the solution to the ills of America's working class, wouldn't it have worked by now?

In the pages of his best-selling memoir, Hillbilly Elegy, Sen. J.D. Vance (R–Ohio) uses his life story as a model for how the children of down-on-their-luck Americans from outside the country's political and cultural power centers can find success.
It is, sincerely, a compelling personal story. One that Vance retold in vivid detail to cap the third night of the Republican National Convention (RNC) in Milwaukee. He got out of his childhood home of Middletown, Ohio—"a place that had been cast aside and forgotten by America's ruling class in Washington," he said—to join the Marines, attend college, graduate from Yale Law School, and become a husband and father.
"Some people tell me I've lived the American Dream, and, of course, they are right," said Vance, who accepted the nomination to be Donald Trump's running mate this November.
Vance is still telling his personal story, but eight years after Hillbilly Elegy was published (and Trump roared onto the political scene), the lessons of the tale have changed. Back then, he wrote, "These problems were not created by government or corporations or anyone else. We created them, and only we can fix them."
That's not the case anymore. Instead of encouraging an escape from the cycle of poverty and drug addiction that is holding back the Americans who might otherwise follow Vance's example, it's now more politically expedient for Vance to encourage those individuals to find someone to blame for their problems.
In his RNC speech, there were plenty of scapegoats. To highlight just a few:
- "NAFTA, a bad trade deal that sent countless good jobs to Mexico."
- "From Iraq to Afghanistan, from the financial crisis to the Great Recession, from open borders to stagnating wages, the people who govern this country have failed and failed again."
- "Wall Street barons crashed the economy, and American builders went out of business."
- "Thanks to these policies that [President Joe] Biden and other out-of-touch politicians in Washington gave us, our country was flooded with cheap Chinese goods, with cheap foreign labor, and in the decades to come, deadly Chinese fentanyl."
And the answer to those problems is no longer to grab the most readily available rung of the economic ladder and start climbing. It's not to join the Marines, work hard, and get good enough grades to earn a spot at Yale (and grab the corresponding ticket to the elite world that Vance now inhabits).
Now, Vance posits that the answer is to vote for Trump, naturally.
This is a pretty unsatisfying answer if your goal is to provide an actual economic and cultural lifeline to people who have been left behind. They've probably tried voting before! In fact, many of them have probably voted for Trump before—possibly twice.
This is the uncomfortable contradiction at the center of Trump's third campaign for the presidency. He's still campaigning as the ultimate populist outsider on a mission to overturn the political system and rewrite the American economic order—even though he controls one of the two major political parties and was literally the president for four years.
That contradiction is reflected in Trump's decision to put Vance on the ticket. Trump is a wealthy heir from New York City who embraced low-brow culture to become a champion of the working class. Vance is the child of the working class who embraced the political and cultural elite to get to a place that he said Wednesday he "never in my wildest imagination" believed he'd end up at.
They're both compelling stories, and Trump and Vance are an undeniably fascinating set of characters playing roles that break some of the usual archetypes in the political system. But being a fascinating character is not the same as having good ideas or workable solutions.
There will be plenty of time later in the campaign to dig into the specifics of those policies. For now, this much should be clear: Voting harder isn't going to save the people of western* Ohio, or anywhere else. Vance escaped that life and parlayed his empowering personal story of success into the chance to be one heartbeat away from the presidency. Do as he does, not as he says.
CORRECTION: This post originally misidentified the location of Middletown within Ohio.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
whats an example of a satisfying political sales pitch?
Who can say? Boehm is a moron.
You wouldn't think they'd be phoning it in like this for the brown envelope jobs.
"Popular person not really as popular as other people think they are." - Opinions From My Mom's Basement
Again-
Media, particularly Reason (2024): The people who support Trump don't really know who he is. All the closeted sexism, the shameless self-promotion, the dishonest-but-self-serving personal interactions, the crude stereotypes and generalizations... he's not the leader the working class and Evangelicals think he is.
Also Media, particularly Reason (2024): Biden has the functionality of an advanced dementia patient?
Since when?Why didn't anyone tell us?Imagine not just torturing a dementia patient with an effective full time job, but the top full time job and then gaslighting and compelling everyone to play along. And this is after 6 ft., masks, Church is dangerous, mostly peaceful protests are how democracy works, vaccines are 100% safe and effective with no downsides.
No matter how much you hate the media. It's not enough.
Tar and feathers. The "tar" used was generally some kind of wood pitch, and liquid enough at room temperatures to do the job.
Admitting that you will strategically and reluctantly vote for a guy who is a borderline comatose big-government marxist over a guy who has semi-libertarian tendencies when he doesn't think too hard but occasionally will lash out with some unpleasant tweets. (formerly 'X')
Does that count?
...a guy who has semi-libertarian tendencies when he doesn’t think too hard but occasionally will lash out with some unpleasant tweets. (formerly ‘X’)
It would be great if the GOP would put that guy on the ballot instead of Trump/Vance. Who is he?
Trump is the guy who actually reduced government regulations.
Thankfully the Reason candidate restored them.
Another desperate hit piece on JD Vance, this time by the subnormal buffoon called Boehm. Perhaps TDS is now mutating into the new variant. VDS.
You've got two meaningful choices:
* Vote for more and more of the same with Biden.
* Vote for a chance of less of the same with Trump.
Of course, unless you're in a swing state, your individual vote is almost meaningless, so go ahead and write in Donald Duck or even Donald Drumpf. But Daffy Duck is more to my liking.
It's the GOP convention. What were you expecting, a pitch for Chase?
This is as dumb a premise as Emma Camp’s piece where she’s shocked that the delegates and voters at the Republican National Convention think libertarians should vote for Republican candidates.
But Britschigi and Petti outdo Camp and Boehm.
Petti tries to pretend that funding the military is the same thing as starting wars.
Britschigi just flat out lies and says Trump supports zoning regulations; but in the statement he uses as proof, Trump literally says the opposite.
But it was pretty hilarious when Camp talked about folks at the RNC trying to talk a libertarian into voting Republican, and then was apparently talking about herself.
Is she Jeffy’s skinny cousin? Or do they just suffer from the same delusions?
Daffy was the king back in the 30s/early 40s. Back when he was actually Daffy. Back before Chuck Jones got ahold of him and turned him into a bitter curmudgeon loser.
I realize this has nothing to do with what anyone came here to talk about. But some things just can’t stay bottled up. They’re always bubbling just beneath the surface of our society.
You know,,,The Dems COULD have had a primary and dealt with this issue months ago.
That only works if the party and media actually care about democracy. The way they conduct primaries is just one of many examples that they don't
I'm starting to feel like Reason is a bunch of smarmy high school kids making hot takes that they think are profound.
Seriously, its a fucking political speech. And the whole "if voting worked it would have fixed everything by now..." what the fuck, dude? How does that have anything to do with JD Vance?
What, exactly, do these people want from the Republican National Convention? Do they want people who are trying to get elected to... what? Not pander to their base? Not tell people to vote for them over the other guy? Fight guaranteed losing battles?
It's a political convention for a major party. The entire point of that convention is to say "Yeah us! Boo that other party!" It is literally the only reason they hold these events, make them such a giant to-do.
And, frankly, article after article of dumb fuck snarky takes is getting really tiresome. And I've only read two or three and skipped the rest based on the headlines.
They think it would have been better if JD had gotten high before he gave a speech.
Boehm is a regime cuck masquerading as a "libertarian".
It's so weird how Liberteen Magazine never seems to manage this many stories about the Democrat candidates... in a single day... all revolving around the same theme...
I just can't fathom it. It's almost like this once proud libertarian periodical has been hollowed out and is being worn like a skin suit by unprincipled cunts whose primary goal is to get Democrats elected and ease the slide of America into destruction, or something.
I'm convinced it's because they've relocated to DC. LA was not ideal, but Nick was still in Ohio, I believe, and other staffers elsewhere. Now they've got NYC and DC staffers only, near as I can tell.
Fire KMW.
Get out of DC.
Start remembering to work liberty into every article. Pragmatism and utilitarianism are nice, but not by themselves.
Has there been this many articles about Kamala Harris in the last month even? I mean she is the current VP who could easily become the POTUS or the Democratic nominee any day now. So perhaps there should be an examination of her record and views of at least the same level as the Republican VP nominee?
But, but MAGA and populism and stuff. Reason just bleats the same talking points as the rest of regime media.
What I'm getting here is that you'd've opposed anything this guy said for being a political solution. At a political convention. By the fucking candidate for vice president.
I hope the wine moms don’t get Vance mixed up with their brave and dreamy Zelenskyy, they kinda look alike.
This could be a real problem for the Democrats.
This could be a real problem for the Democrats.
Just convict POTUS for quid-pro-quo discretionary spending with the VPOTUS whom everyone confuses with the President of an ally and NATO member state. What's the problem?
The only solution is to prohibit government coercion because that's what causes all the problems.
Another stupid political take from Reeeeeson.
Two things can simultaneously be true. People can ultimately be responsible for lifting themselves up and lousy policies can make their doing so harder and less likely. If you guys weren’t spending half your time fellating the managerial-technocratic establishment, that would be obvious. It’s absurd that a libertarian magazine has painted itself into defending wildly unlibertarian situations because they’re more interested in the status quo than liberty. For years, libertarians have noted the role of cronyism, the government tilting the playing board, and interventionism have made it harder for guys like Vance to make something of themselves. Now, you want to fault him for noticing what libertarians have been preaching. You people are a joke.
For now, this much should be clear: Voting harder isn't going to save the people of eastern Ohio, or anywhere else.
This is asinine. Change starts with voting.
Vote on November 5th. The choice is a developing cauliflower or a convicted felon. 🙂
(I saw a shirt reading, "I am voting for the convicted felon' on Temu. Hilarious. The Chinese 'get it'. Boehm doesn't.)
Yeah, this has too strong a whiff of "only the corrupt get involved in government of any kind, don't even bother with local elections, much less the big ones like President" Bush/Kristol stank to it.
(I saw a shirt reading, “I am voting for the convicted felon’ on Temu. Hilarious. The Chinese ‘get it’. Boehm doesn’t.)
My favorite t-shirt design I’ve seen recently are the dystopian Venn diagrams.
[Let me know if the link doesn't work, and I'll provide a summary. But no spoilers otherwise.]
Alright, that's a good Venn diagram!
I wonder if it can make Kamala change some of her statist positions since she loves Venn diagrams so much.
Probably wouldn't be effective, though, unless it somehow incorporated a yellow school bus as well.
I'd ask why they support the LP if this is their true belief.
The word has gone out from on high "DESTROY JD VANCE!!! " and Reason will obey.
Now, Vance posits that the answer is to vote for Trump, naturally.
Well, I suspect that’s because the Trump/MAGA position is that he really does believe that “the answer to those problems is to grab the most readily available rung of the economic ladder and start climbing.”
But he also believes that the Leftist Democrats have pulled that ladder up behind them, and deprived anyone else of ever having a chance to grab ANY rung unless they kiss the ring of marxism, victim/identity politics, and intersectionality. The Democrats openly promise us that if we’re not on board with DEI/ESG/LGBT/CRT nonsense – then that ladder won’t be reachable anymore.
And plenty of people have capitulated in response. I suspect Vance is making the political promise that people won’t have to capitulate to that garbage anymore in order to grab the first rung.
But he also believes that the Leftist Democrats have pulled that ladder up behind them, and deprived anyone else of ever having a chance to grab ANY rung unless they kiss the ring of marxism, victim/identity politics, and intersectionality.
The “Leftist Democrats” believe that over the last few decades, all of the wealthy, nominally Democrat or Republican, have pulled the ladder up behind them. That has deprived everyone else of reaching any rung other than to be a replaceable cog in the money-making corporate machine.
It’s easy to sign on to a party that works hard to make the other side look evil. That is because it is easy to believe that the other side is evil if you are predisposed to do so. I think that the better plan is for me to not pick a side until after I have examined issues based on verifiable evidence (aka facts) and sound reasoning. The side I choose should be the one with that is putting the right level of priority to the problems I care about (it matches my values reasonably well), it looks to implement practical solutions to those problems, and it is honest with voters about its intentions and actions if in power. Then, I continue to apply equal skepticism to my chosen side and the opposition, or even better, greater skepticism to my chosen side to counter the bias I’ll inevitably develop.
Of course, Vulcans are fictional, so I cannot apply logic consistently. I can only continue to push myself to do so. (I would have said “try”, but as a wise Master once said, “Do, or do not. There is no try.”)
Agreed.
"For now, this much should be clear: Voting harder isn't going to save the people of eastern Ohio, or anywhere else."
Ballots or bullets, Mr. Boehm. That is the grand bargain of representative democracy.
Ballots or bullets, Mr. Boehm. That is the grand bargain of representative democracy.
Democracy (or representative democracy, constitutional republic, or whatever other term people prefer) is the principle that we should settle our differences over how to govern our society by voting instead of killing each other. I can't see any alternative to holding elections that doesn't involve someone using force to gain and hold government power.
Voting "harder" doesn't even mean anything. Voting smarter could mean people looking at what candidates actually plan to do if they win that will affect their lives directly. If it means that, then it would also mean not being distracted by candidates' attempts to make some cultural issue* something of prime importance. It would also mean being skeptical of everything a candidate claims is true, and that means every candidate, especially the ones we'd consider voting for. Being skeptical of candidates from a party or with ideas we strongly oppose and would never vote for is important for when we have debates with people that do or might support those candidates or ideas. It is not important to our own voting decisions.
*(I would think that libertarians wouldn't even want government involved in enforcing or challenging cultural conformity at all. Conservatives, on the other hand, are often highly interested in making sure their cultural and religious values are enforced by government, just as liberals and progressives are highly invested in government challenging what they think are "outdated" or "bigoted" cultural views.)
I'm not saying that JD Vance is the best thing since sliced bread, but this article is more of a hit job than a critique.
The truth is that it didn't matter who Trump picked for his VP. Whom ever Trump picked would instantaneously would become the "Hitler in Training".
JD Vance is young and old fart.
JD Vance was able to change his mind and own it.
JD Vance is much more nuanced than the average politician.
JD Vance scares most of the war-hawks and establishment and ruling elites.
JD Vance is not perfect, but is a darn sight better than what we currently have.
If voting was the solution to the ills of America's working class, wouldn't it have worked by now?
Now you are telling me!? All those years I voted for Democrats because they are the party of America's working class. Prosperity is right around the corner you wrecker.
JD Vance was able to change his mind and own it.
So, he owns going from being a "Never Trump guy," while saying, "Mr. Trump is unfit for our nation’s highest office" in 2016 and wondering if Trump is "America's Hitler" to fully supporting the guy to be President of the United States again? Other comments he made in 2016:
“I can’t stomach Trump,” Vance said in an interview with NPR, when describing why he would vote for a third-party candidate. “I think that he’s noxious and is leading the white working class to a very dark place.”
“I think there’s a chance, if I feel like Trump has a really good chance of winning, that I might have to hold my nose and vote for Hillary Clinton.”
Then there's the facebook message he sent to a friend (now a Democrat state senator) that year:
“I think most people are not very ideological, and Trump, while I find him loathsome, touches a legitimate nerve. You should read David Frum's piece in the Atlantic on the Republican revolt. But I'm not surprised by Trump's rise, and I think the entire party has only itself to blame,” Vance messaged McLaurin. “We are, whether we like it or not, the party of lower-income, lower-education white people, and I have been saying for a long time that we need to offer those people SOMETHING (and hell, maybe even expand our appeal to working-class black people in the process) or a demagogue would. We are now at that point. Trump is the fruit of the party's collective neglect.”
“I go back and forth between thinking Trump is a cynical asshole like Nixon who wouldn't be that bad (and might even prove useful) or that he's America's Hitler. How's that for discouraging?”
I think it would be a good thing if more Republicans admitted that they supported Trump once he sewed up the nomination in 2016 because they thought he'd be a "useful" "demagogue" to continue increasing their appeal to "lower-income, lower-education white people" and then just kept following along once Trump took over the party.
How much has actually changed in Republican lawmaking and executive actions since Trump became President in 2017? The rhetoric, style, and tactics certainly have, but what about the laws actually passed at the federal and state level along with executive actions by GOP governors and Trump while he was in office? This isn't a rhetorical question I'm asking. I genuinely want to know what Trump voters think is different about how the GOP has actually governed when and where they have had control.
they thought he’d be a “useful” “demagogue” to continue increasing their appeal to “lower-income, lower-education white people”
Strange, I take a vastly different message away from Vance's comments. I see a guy arguing that the previous GOP leadership had completely dismissed the interests and wishes of their working class and bourgeois remnant base and opened the field up to a demagogue who would promise to serve those interests. He assumed Trump was such a demagogue.
Or, in your universe, aren't working class and bourgeois voters allowed to have interests and preferences?
Strange, I take a vastly different message away from Vance’s comments. I see a guy arguing that the previous GOP leadership had completely dismissed the interests and wishes of their working class and bourgeois remnant base and opened the field up to a demagogue who would promise to serve those interests. He assumed Trump was such a demagogue.
Well, that is what I am taking from Vance's comments as well. But that doesn't conflict with some of the previous leadership recognizing that Trump could be a "useful" demagogue before the primaries started and the rest coming around to that view after he was the presumptive nominee.
Oh, and Vance didn't talk about the "working class and bourgeois remnant" base voters. He said, "We are, whether we like it or not, the party of lower-income, lower-education white people." That does not include any of the "bourgeois," aka the middle class.
Didn't Kamala call Biden an utter racist before signing on to his VP?
Just asking for curiosity.
Um, no she didn't. In a Democratic Party debate in 2019, she said, "I do not believe you are racist." But then she went on to criticize him for making positive comments about working with a Senator that was known as a segregationist. She also criticized him for opposing the federal government requiring busing to desegregate schools in the 70s. Biden tried to reply to that, but at a minimum, he wasn't very successful with explanations.
I hope that satisfied your curiosity.
“From Iraq to Afghanistan, from the financial crisis to the Great Recession, from open borders to stagnating wages, the people who govern this country have failed and failed again.”
This really isn’t a scapegoat. Our leaders have failed this country over and over again. This criticism could’ve come straight out of the mouth of Ron Paul. Matter of fact this used to be a criticism most libertarians would make (with the exception of the open borders criticism). Are libertarians scapegoating the government when they talk about regulations killing industries in certain states?
Are libertarians scapegoating the government when they talk about regulations killing industries in certain states?
Are progressives scapegoating the government when they talk about a lack of regulation killing people from pollution, poor worker safety, and such?
What regulations of industry to make is an essential debate to have. There are trade offs no matter which direction you go with it. I think that the important part of the debate is to delve into the details, which, unfortunately, is boring, time consuming, and doesn't hold people's attention well.
I completely agree that leaders across the country and political spectrum have failed again and again to make rational, evidence based decisions about regulation, among many other policies.
“Are progressives scapegoating the government when they talk about a lack of regulation killing people from pollution, poor worker safety, and such?”
No. I actually think there are honest progressives/populists out there who believe that government can be a force for good in protecting people from pollution, unsafe conditions in the workplace, etc.
My problem with the author is that he’s taking a criticism that falls pretty clearly in line with libertarian critiques and using it as an example of JD Vance “scapegoating.” Which plays into Reason’s overall flawed narrative that Republicans are abandoning their “free market principles.”
"What regulations of industry to make is an essential debate to have. There are trade offs no matter which direction you go with it."
It's more than that. I think its okay to claim that there are bad actors at play here, in both government and the private sector, when you're talking about the Great Recession, bank bailouts, and wars of choice.
Problem #1: Middletown is not in Eastern Ohio. Please consult a map before victim shaming the citizens of a town you've clearly never visited.
Problem #2: I am seeing the following logical fallacy far to often lately among some Republicans and Libertarians:
- Case studies have shown that individuals are better equipped than policy makers to overcome a certain problem on a micro scale
- THEREFORE individuals are better equipped than policy makers to address this problem on a macro scale
- THEREFORE individuals, not policy makers, are to blame for creating this problem
The regime has spoken and reason falls in line.
Look at Reason, trying to - unsubtly - blackpill GOP voters.
Every time I read one of these ridiculous hit pieces at Reason (or basically anything by Emma Camp), I pat myself on the back for canceling my subscription.
FWIW, they did send a pro-rated refund. That was a classy move.
I'm glad that you still read the articles, even though you think of them as hit pieces. It is always good to have our views challenged. But we certainly don't have to financially support Reason if we don't want to. They would have every right to limit viewing the articles to paying subscribers, though. Even classier of them to keep the articles free when virtually all newspapers limit you to one or two articles a month without subscribing.