The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
The Populist GOP and its Yale Law and Harvard Law Leaders
A notable dynamic, and one worth trying to explain.
The nomination of J.D. Vance as the Republican party's Vice-Presidential candidate in the upcoming election brings up an interesting contrast. On one hand, today's GOP embraces a heavy dose of populism. It's pretty standard for Republican politicians to rail against elites who are against the average Joe. On the other hand, if you look at the younger generation of GOP leaders, the politicians who are likely to lead the party in coming years, there sure are a lot of Harvard Law School and Yale Law School graduates.
J.D. Vance is one example. He's a graduate of Yale Law School, Class of 2013. But think of other possible future GOP Presidential candidates. There's Senator Joshua Hawley, Yale Law Class of 2006. And lots of Harvard Law grads are in the mix. We have Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, Harvard Law Class of 2005 (sort of a crossover, as he went to Yale for college). And Senator Ted Cruz, Harvard Law Class of 1995, where he went after college at Princeton. And there's also Senator Tom Cotton, Harvard Law Class of 2002. I'm probably forgetting others.
It seems worth asking, how is it that the GOP has embraced both populism and a set of prominent figures, at least among the younger generation, who are Harvard Law and Yale Law graduates? Or maybe more specifically, why is it that going to an elite law school seems to be a significant advantage within the GOP?
One answer might be that this is not a story specifically about the GOP at all. There are certainly lots of Democratic leaders who went to these places! It's kinda barfy, if you think about it. If you look at the last eight Presidential elections, six of the eight Democratic Presidential nominees went to Harvard Law or Yale Law. (If you're wondering: Harvard Law's Michael Dukakis was the unsuccessful nominee in 1988; Yale Law's Bill Clinton was the successful nominee in 1992 and 1996; Harvard Law's Barack Obama was the successful nominee in 2008 and 2012; and Yale Law's Hillary Clinton was the unsuccessful nominee in 2016. As I said, kinda barfy.) So maybe this is bipartisan. Maybe the advantages that flow to elite law school grads in politics cover both parties equally. Or maybe smart and ambitious youngsters plotting a political career know that and aim for those kinds of schools.
Maybe.
But I suspect there's something else at work, too. What's striking to me is that Harvard, Yale, and other "top" law schools have only a very small number of conservatives. It's one thing for schools where Democrats vastly outnumber Republicans to generate a lot of future Democratic leaders. It's another for them to generate so many future Republican leaders. The odds of a politically ambitious conservative at an elite law school actually becoming a big deal in American politics is unusually high, it seems to me—all the more striking given the GOP's populist turn.
What might explain that? I don't know. I'm curious about what explanations you might have. But let me offer three possibilities, just to get the conversation started:
(1) There's an inside lawyer track that works in GOP politics (Examples: Cruz and Cotton). In some of the cases, the individuals seem to have taken a role as elite lawyers within the party before running for office— using that legal role as a key conservative credential for later political campaigns.
Ted Cruz did this. He clerked at the Supreme Court, served in the Bush Administration, and practiced in DC before he was appointed Solicitor General of his home state of Texas by then-Attorney-General Greg Abbott in 2003—just 8 years after Cruz graduated from law school. He then argued a bunch of Supreme Court cases as state Solicitor General in which, representing Texas, he was on the conservative side. Ted then used his lawyering before the Supreme Court as his key conservative credential to run for the Senate in 2012.
Josh Hawley's path to the Senate was in the same ballpark. After clerking at the Supreme Court and practicing a bit, Hawley returned to his home state of Missouri to be a law professor at the University of Missouri—while also helping to litigate Supreme Court cases on the conservative side. From there, he ran for state Attorney General, winning that race just 10 years after he graduated from law school. And then after just two years as state Attorney General, he won his Senate seat. In both Cruz's and Hawley's cases, they used their academic credentials and legal experience as a key argument for their candidacies. Their legal efforts on behalf of conservative causes at the U.S. Supreme Court apparently resonated with a lot of voters.
(2) Elite law school graduates come off as battle-hardened. Another explanation, more specifically about populism, is that populist conservative voters are fine with voting for conservative graduates of elite law schools because having attended those school affords conservative politicians a sort of veteran status of its own. The politicians running for GOP office don't speak fondly of their time at these schools. Instead, they present their time at Harvard Law or Yale Law as a difficult test of strength that they passed. They spent three years in the trenches of liberalism and they emerged victorious. They are now battle-hardened and ready to fight the liberals while in political office. From that perspective, graduating from these schools isn't a problem. Instead, like a medal on a military uniform, it's a credential.
(3) Adding elite law school credentials to military service creates a powerful combination (Examples: Vance, DeSantis, Cotton). I'm less confident of this one, so maybe this is totally wrong. But speaking of military uniforms, it's hard not to notice that several of these politicians are also veterans. JD Vance served in the Marines from 2003 to 2007, acting, as I understand it, primarily in the role of a journalist and public affairs specialist. Tom Cotton served on active duty as an officer in the Army from 2005 to 2009, where among other things he led an air assault infantry platoon in Iraq. Ron DeSantis joined the Navy in 2004 and was a lawyer for the Navy until his discharge in 2010.
These days, the combination of military service and attending top law schools is (unfortunately) pretty rare. But it's possible that this combination is part of the political appeal here. Maybe adding elite law school credentials to military service works really well together, especially in a GOP primary. It combines patriotism and bookishness, brawn and brains. Not sure about this, but maybe the combination is at least part of what's politically powerful.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I do think it’s a little surprising that both the Republican nominees are Ivy League graduates, while (unless, perhaps, Biden drops out) neither of the Democrats are.
It has to do with wealth. Trump is the third straight Republican President who was born into wealth and didn’t have to work a day in his life. By contrast Biden is the fifth straight Democrat who grew up in modest (and in the case of Biden, Clinton, LBJ) sometimes desperate circumstances.
"third straight Republican" "fifth straight Democrat"
Starting comparisons from different points. Always the mark of honest argument!
Well, fabulous wealth doesn’t bother you when it works for you, which is sketchier than you think.
FDR was born into wealth, and massively increased income taxes, which stunts accumulation of wealth, which, purely coincidentally, slows the apparance of challengers to old money masters of the universe.
And the Kennedys…
Fun with words
Also note NPCs chime at the end, regurgitating their echo chamber orders.
"Trump . . . didn’t have to work a day in his life."
Maybe, but he did work all the days of his life and has a famous work ethic. Usually people use this phrase for someone who doesn't work.
Nobody necessarily has to work anymore, you can live off welfare if you want.
“he did work all the days of his life and has a famous work ethic.”
This is a joke, right? It is belied by people who have actually worked with him (at least, those who haven’t signed a nondisparagement agreement). And by Trump himself, who boasts publicly about not preparing for things and not reading reports.
Famous work ethic? These dumbasses are the target audience of a bunch of white, male, right-wing, bigoted law professors. I hope the faculty hiring committees at legitimate law schools have learned their lesson.
P.S. Arthur: No need to say that I shouldn't blog here. Thanks.
"It's kinda barfy, if you think about it" = hilarious...I am using it, shamelessly. I will give proper attribution. I will call it: Kerr's Postulate. 🙂
I greatly enjoy reading your posts.
Same. I thought this was a interesting observation and I'm glad he shared it.
It goes without saying, much like your position on the multifaceted bigotry -- a tone set at the top that animates this blog every day -- that permeates the blog with which you associate (and with which you associate your employer).
Did you guys get together and pledge to establish a united front of silence on this blog's partisan bigotry, or does it just comes naturally to all of you?
Why is it that a sentence that starts out “It goes without saying …” then concludes by saying exactly what was supposed to (wait for it) go without saying? As Arsenio Hall used to say, “Makes you want to say hmmmm”
He doesn't do it out of need. He's on a mission from God. Why do you hate James Belushi?
I was expecting (4) Skull & Bones
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull_and_Bones
Dreams From My Mamaw is such a great book! Btw, has anyone checked JD Soleimani Vance’s birth certificate?? WTF does he have so many names?? I’m just asking questions.
The "JD" part of his long name requires periods in between the letters ever since he left appalachia. Only mamaw can still use the periodless version.
This ticket has less than 6 years of government experience…and that’s only if you include 2020 when Fauci was in charge of the federal government and Trump was his lil’ bitch!! Btw, Trump and Vance have cancer from going to East Palestine! Buttigeig tricked them into going to that toxic hellhole!!
>This ticket has less than 6 years of government experience
Good. The government has become a cesspool of corruption, fascism, and incompetence. Their inability to govern and solve problems is demonstrated time and time again. The political ones even run on it every four years.
>and that’s only if you include 2020 when Fauci was in charge of the federal government and Trump was his lil’ bitch
So the COVID disaster was Fauci?
Only six years as opposed to Biden/Harris 60-70 years. Given the records of Biden/Harris six years sounds like a strong reason to vote Trump/Vance.
I suggest another principle. Neither party is actually populist. Both are, above every other consideration, pro-corporate, and heavily corporate funded. It should surprise no one that pro-corporate parties look first and foremost for leadership to the schools most-favored by major corporate boards of directors.
God, I totally agree with a Lathrop comment. I'm going to have to rethink my entire life after this.
You should have rethought your entire life before this.
The less thinking Brett Bellmore attempts the better.
I am experiencing a similar cognitive dissonance, Brett. I will stop short of a entire life rethink.
None of the above. They're skilled first, at preparing themselves for opportunity. And second at taking advantage of it and maximizing it when it arises.
JD Vance was against Trump before he was for him. Most of the GOP was against Trump now theyre for him. Political skill is figuring out where the Overton window lies, and adapting and selling. For 50 years the GOP thought the Overton window on abortion was somewhere else. Now that they need to get elected, they are moving.
In other words, a good lawyer represents their clients, and they are skilled at figuring out what their clients want.
A significant amount of success in life is figuring out what other people, like your professors or managers, want and then delivering it. You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it, but you have to get it done so you can get through the meeting, get through the course, or get through the presentation, so you can get paid or graduate.
Yale professors are far less important than they think. The least successful students will be the ones that are the True Believers. The most successful will be the ones who are The Pretenders.
You might call this a flavor of battle harden, but I don't think so. Politics requires a unique skill set to become a chameleon
There’s a big difference between telling people what they want to hear and actually giving them what they want. The first does not imply the second.
I think rather than just focus on education, you also need to focus on the early life of the individual and how they were raised. Does three years at an Ivy Law really make you an "elitist"? Or as an extremely smart, driven individual, from a disadvantaged background, does it demonstrate that you are very smart and driven. And you can continue to work for the people, but also know "how the elites think".
I mean, compare Biden's or Harris's early life with JD Vance's. Both Biden and Harris were from quite well off backgrounds. Vance...not so much.
I'd argue those formative 18 or so years are more important than 3 years in an Ivy, in determining an "elite" mindset.
Yes, I was surprised given Vance's overall background that he's labeled elite solely for his school.
Of similar tone are those on the right, including here, with great hostility to higher education as indoctrination centers, but who themselves went to a buncha school.
'It's different now!' they say, not having been on campus in decades.
Yeah, it's not like we have faculty surveys to show that the institutions have gone off the rails, or anything like that.
Oh, wait, we do have data showing that.
And where's the proof these 'elite' institutions are radically unrepresentative of the American electorate?
Oh, wait, we've got that, too.
That data doesn’t really show anything about indoctrination. Ideological lockstep isn’t great, but you’re writing checks that data cannot cash.
Can you think of why the right wing brand might be a bit shameful for people to admit in public these days, guy who still believes in the Bell Curve, who thinks gays have been at the forefront of every pandemic *in history*, believes January 06 was an FBI inside job, and thinks every institution from the GOP to big business are secretly devoted leftists?
Why would America's strongest research and teaching institutions be less hospitable to bigotry (in myriad right-wing forms), superstition (myriad flavors of nonsense), and belligerent ignorance (QAnon, MAGA, vaccinations, creationism, stolen elections, etc.) than conservatives and Republicans would wish them to be?
Spoiler: The reality-based, modern world. Science and reason.
Right, you think an institution is going to purge all its conservatives by attrition, and not engage in any indoctrination. Like they'd at that point be able to distinguish indoctrination and "teaching".
Yes, I can think of why the right wing brand might be a bit shameful in the eyes of left wingers. Just as the reverse is true. But whence comes this casual assumption that everything is to be judged from a left-wing perspective?
Bellmore — It's not a casual assumption. It's a desperate resort, following observation that when people on the so-called right wing show independent judgment, the right wing boots them out.
Liz Cheney is no left-winger's political dream boat. She just refused to march in lockstep for lies. Once you see that, you know that at least for now, it would be better to assign necessary judgments to the left.
It hasn't always been that way. A capacity for good judgment will someday reassert itself among the political right. Left wingers will celebrate it when it happens, and renew the presently suspended good-judgment cooperation project with right wingers.
You can't see any of that, because someone stuck a tribalist fuse in your cooperator socket.
You can't conceive of anybody independently disagreeing with you? Only the people who leave the GOP have independent judgement?
How about people who leave the Democratic party; Do they display independent judgement, too?
There was no purge. Your numbers don't show a purge, you just think they do, via an appeal to incredulity.
It's another conspiracy theory from you.
My numbers show the percentage of conservative faculty declining at a rate that would easily be explained by normal attrition and a policy of not hiring any more conservatives.
You're free to irrationally propose that they're hiring just as many conservatives as ever, who are then for some inexplicable reason becoming liberals after they're hired.
"right wing brand might be a bit shameful for people to admit in public these days"
Only to intolerant libs.
45-50% of the population have right-ish views. You may think they are "deplorables", they don't think so.
Right-ish is a great changing target.
Point is, when conservatives report self-censoring in higher rates than others, it could be because the left is so mean.
Or it could be because the right has views that people in groups condemn. Because performative assholery is never popular, no matter how many assholes there are.
Just look at the number of 'you have to play with us' initiatives the right is putting on. At schools, in social media. And complaints that advertising doesn't have enough smart white guys.
"performative assholery is never popular,"
As you illustrate daily.
No, Bob, that's you.
Whatever I've got going on, it's not in your ballpark.
You veritably preen in the comments when someone is offended by your open immorality, from your hot takes about due process to the virtues of lying for political gain to dehumanizing the homeless.
This blog is your anti virtue signaling zone.
Maybe a lot on the right aren't quite as weird as you and don't think being hated is cool.
Bob is a disaffected, worthless, bigoted, right-wing hayseed. If I had his career and circumstances I might be cranky, depressed, bitter, and useless, too.
"Of similar tone are those on the right, including here, with great hostility to higher education as indoctrination centers, but who themselves went to a buncha school."
They were indoctrination centers when I went there as well, but they are more so now.
Why would people who didn't go to "a buncha school" have strong feelings about the subject, not having experienced it?
The fact that the people who think higher institutions are indoctrination centers cuts against your claim that they are not.
"buncha"?
I think this has not been so much of a problem in the past, because while Yale and Harvard have been skewed left-wing for a long while, the skew was actually fairly modest until recently. It was only in the late 90's when conservative hiring at these institutions essentially stopped, and it took several decades for the existing conservative faculty to age out.
It's more of a problem going forward, because at THIS point, these schools are scarcely more than indoctrination camps. Vance is probably of the last generation coming out of Yale where you could blow the issue off.
If old-timey superstition, conservative bigotry, and right-wing belligerent ignorance genuinely are the right calls for schools, the market will punish the Harvards, Yales, Berkeleys, Wellesleys, Swarthmores, and Michigans while establishing the Hillsdales, Franciscans, Ouachita Baptists, Regents, Ave Marias, Brigham Youngs, and Wheatons as our nation's strongest research and teaching institutions.
Good luck with that, clingers.
So. As a Southerner who went to a self-proclaimed elite of the elite school up there, perhaps I can offer a few clues.
1. You instantly find every other Southerner in your class, and likely the classes above you, etc. Even if at home you would never be in their class / crowd, everyone stretches the limits to connect. More a lifeline than any old-boy/-girl cabal.
2. People go one of two ways: Most find their redneck gene. A few ape those they consider their betters. People who disdain their roots (and that's 90% of people who squeak into the Ivies) and those who disdain others 'not their kind' (90% of people who inherit the Ivies) don't even recognize when they're showing borderline -- or blatant -- contempt for normal Southerners who at least grew up loving their families and going to church. Of the 6 Southerners in my class or the one above, 3 went roots and 2 went rootsy-international (it was that kind of school). One had already been to Brown, started nearly every sentence with "When I was at Brown...", and let's just say he went the other way.
I don't know if that's a common proportion, but I do know that south of the Mason-Dixon I hear the same redneck-gene-activation story from nearly everyone who's lived up there any length of time. (Post-grad degrees and technical credential types, not meaning an innocent who went to the big city once.) I know that's a different kind of selection bias, but still maybe a clue.
3. In my experience, one might learn that some of these people (especially including the profs) are not very smart and don't have any common sense or know how to do things like change a tire or earn a living. I never had an admiration for the urban Northeast US, so it wasn't a rude shock, just a shock in terms of what I had considered basic human decency or manners. In an endlessly contentious context, one might learn to choose one's battles and sometimes use a stiletto or a joke instead of belligerence or logic, and will learn - sometimes the hard way - who your friends & allies are, or aren't.
4. Southerners, military. That one doesn't take much to connect. Even if your family doesn't have the tradition, people around you do, and back in the day you probably lived fairly near a military base of some kind. I grew up within a couple of hours of three - Army, Marines, Air Force.
These factors are anecdotally very very common in my experience, and strike me as sufficient to understand most of your list.
It takes gymnastic effort to assemble that many words about Southerners without mentioning the bigotry.
Congratulations, clinger.
Precisely who thinks of Vance or DeSantis as brawny?
They're pudgy desk jockeys whose military service seems to have consisted of running a small-time newsletter and sitting behind a desk in a small-time legal office. Their "tough guys in uniforms" act is suitable solely for especially gullible, downscale, uninformed audiences (the folks impressed by DeSantis' shoe lifts and Trump's "hair").
Running a good college newspaper was tougher than J.D. Vance's newsletter gig.
Had Vance been positioned to try out to become a staffer on the Yale Daily News, he would have found it a notably heavier lift than to become a right-wing Vice Presidential candidate.
Is there any evidence Vance, after leaving the military, even tried to see whether he could hack it at a legitimate newspaper?
I sense he was a military-grade "journalist," nothing more.
Does it ever occur to you, Kerr, that Messrs. Hawley, Cruz, Vance, etc. may be less than entirely sincere in their populism?
If you want to gauge how aware Prof. Kerr is, ask him whether he can state how many vile racial slurs his blog has published this year. Or last year. Or the year before that.
Or ask whether he believes his blog has any gay-basher-racist-Islamophobe-misogynist-transphobe-antisemite-xenophobe problems.
I'm sure it does. Isn't that part of his point? That they're able to sell themselves as populists despite their biographies.
He served as a special consel to Senator John Cornyn. He is aware of the general nature of Cornyn's colleagues.
https://volokh.com/2009/06/05/blogging-break-4/
I think points 1 and 2 both contribute to this phenomenon. But I think two bigger factors are the role of opportunism and the fact that the populist takeover of the GOP is relatively new.
Opportunism seems to me underrated as an explanation of why political figures take the ideological positions they take. What many prominent political figures with long careers have in common is a great deal of ideological movement, coinciding with political opportunities. Churchill is virtually a case study in this phenomenon. If one watched Tucker Carlson on Crossfire in the early aughts, one couldn't possibly predict his populist turn. It seems to me the current leaders of the populist right are generally those who recognized the political opportunity and shifted their views rather than those who were populist back when being being a populist in the Republican Party was pushing a rock uphill.
The other thing is that most of the current crop of national leaders were well into their political careers by the time populism took off on the right. Gaining the status of a national political leader tends to take decades unless one has tremendous wealth and branding talent (e.g., Trump, Perot). So it shouldn't be much of a surprise that today's populist leaders are converted old-boy-network types and not true outsiders. Should the appeal of right-leaning populism endure, I would guess future generations of national leaders will be more diverse.
In 2016 a bunch of liberals I know were arguing that they didn't see much difference between Trump and Cruz. I thought that was crazy in several ways, but the one relevant to your comment is that Cruz (and others who were going populist in their campaigns) had pretty much all worked their way up through the system. The system had worked for them. They wanted to be at the top, sure, but they had institutional loyalty. Tearing down the Ivies and the Congress and the courts wouldn't benefit them, because they're tearing down their own credentials by doing so. Trump, on the other hand, didn't depend on any of those things, so he didn't care if they were discredited.
That's a bad thing if they shouldn't be discredited, but a good thing about Trump if they actually should be discredited.
What does a choice made at 22 have to do with political views decades later?
Getting an Ivy law credential has been recognized as a golden ticket for quite a long time. Once they decided on law, going to Harvard or Yale if possible is just a smart play.
What does a choice made at 22 have to do with political views decades later?
So much for the indoctrination factories thesis!
Choice to go, not attendance.
Indoctrination is massive, but some people can resist peer [and professor] pressure better than others. Of course they intentionally admit only a few non leftists.
Of course they intentionally admit only a few non leftists.
Of course.
There are multiple "JDs" in baseball.
He's James David Vance to me.
Not complicated. Credential chasing is the modern American dream. My working class parents told my brother, sister and I we would go to college - no ifs, ands or buts. I was the first lawyer in the family.
Unlike most of our Mandarin caste, however, these handful of GOP leaders did not forget from where they came and who makes up most of America.
It’s a type with a long history in the United States. Sam Irving, back more than half a century ago, was also a Yale Law graduate. He was famous for his good ol’ boy demeanor and plain folks style, and skilled at presenting himself as just another farmer.
Historically, cultural affinity was at least as important as issue positions. The more recent trend has been for the two to become more intertwined.
Okay, back to Prof. Kerr's questions:
1. Historically, populist movements usually have been led by members of the elite---the classic example were the Populares in ancient Rome. Often populist leaders with elite backgrounds are seen as renegades by others in the elite, and singled out for particular hatred.
2. Graduates of Harvard and Yale have huge advantages if they wish to move to the top, as Prof. Kerr suggests. It's not only the alumni network, but the more formal assistance. When I undertook the lonely job of seeking an academic position, I used to drool with envy to the support Yale Law School gave its graduates looking for an academic post; my alma mater gave me none ("We just don't do that, Rob.")
3. Another factor is that legal education has become so hierarchical that almost anyone who can get into Harvard or Yale will opt to go there. Smart people gravitate toward the top, and smart people tend to go to Harvard or Yale.
4. As for the military component Prof. Kerr identifies: As I know from my grassroots political experience, Republican activists tend to look very favorably on military service. Veterans have huge advantages over non-veterans in GOP primaries, so you find a disproportionate number of Republican nominees who are veterans. Someone like Vance or DeSantis who has both the Harvard/Yale background and military service enjoys a double advantage if he is a Republican.
5. It is also true that savvy Republicans tend to think of Harvard and Yale as trial by fire: If someone got through that experience and is still a conservative (they think), then he must mean it. Conservatives who haven't gone through that trial may be seen as potentially squishy. Incidentally, I think our experience with Supreme Court justices lends some support to this hypothesis.