Vance proved that a conservative candidate can be forceful, prepared, and dogged in a three-on-one fight against both the debate moderators and his opponent without being a complete ass.
Over the nine years of the Trump era in American politics, Donald Trump has had two major salutary influences on the Republican Party’s prospects and direction: He solidified and entrenched a consensus on the right in favor of immigration restrictionism and border enforcement, and he forged a consensus that views a close relationship and open trade with Communist China as both a grave national-security danger and the cause of a deleterious atrophy of the American industrial base and working class.
Of course, Trump’s influence has had many ill effects as well: He has contributed to a coarsening of our political life and culture; he has welcomed and elevated pseudo-conservative cranks and gadflies; he has rejected any attempts to reform America’s badly troubled entitlement programs; and he has sanctioned the view on the right that a government that runs massive annual deficits and owes an enormous and ever-growing national debt is a problem for later, if ever.
Now there’s no question at all that a future, post-Trump version of the Republican Party — whether that begins to form after defeat in this November’s election or four years from now — will bear the mark of Trump’s near decade as its undisputed leader. There is a question, however, of just what that mark will look like.
It’s quite likely, in my view, that the unifying theme of a successful Republican politics and the message of ambitious conservative politicians over the next few electoral cycles will be an emphasis on making government work well and efficiently — as opposed to an emphasis on shrinking government per se. Out will be Ronald Reagan’s joke that “the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.’” In will be Florida governor Ron DeSantis’s famous competence at deploying government to clean up in the aftermath of a hurricane. In will be Georgia governor Brian Kemp’s or Virginia governor Glenn Youngkin’s emphasis on making sure that government solves problems and actually does what it’s mandated to do.
This is a Trumpian-influenced change to the tone of American conservatism, and it’s not necessarily a bad one, though of course this kind of thinking can have its excesses or dead ends.
But, indeed, it was exactly this language and this tone that powered J. D. Vance’s impressive debate performance Tuesday evening.
I have been open about my criticism of Vance — as a Senate candidate, as a senator, and culminating in his rise to the vice-presidential nomination — because, in my view, Vance has too often reached for easy “boob-bait for bubbas” rhetoric designed to catch the eye of the MAGA base rather than trying to expand the Republican coalition by appealing to marginal or skeptical voters who are open to voting Republican but need persuasion.
When Vance shot himself in the foot with his “childless cat ladies” remark and when he went full demagogue by accusing Liz Cheney of sending “other people’s children off to fight and die for her military conflicts” so that she could “get rich,” it was because he was attempting a Trump Lite affect in an effort to cater to Charlie Kirk’s crowd and Trump’s hard-core base.
Tuesday night, on the other hand, Vance had very obviously decided to concentrate on appealing to a general-electorate audience uninterested in the kind of red meat that would excite the fever swamps on the right.
Vance was winsome, knowledgeable and prepared on policy, empathetic, and, at times, utterly ruthless as he swatted aside Tim Walz.
It was, on the whole, a very good debating performance that demonstrated a skill set much needed at the high levels of Republican politics.
That said, it’s notable that the most difficult moments Vance faced in the debate were tied to his need — naturally, as Trump’s running mate — to defend Trump’s incoherence or vacuity on particular policy issues, such as health care or abortion, or Trump’s mendacity and perfidy on the subject of January 6 and the 2020 election, for which there is no good or believable answer to give.
For example, Vance was notably adroit and succeeded, at least in my estimation, in presenting a defensible version of Trump’s post-Dobbs abortion views: There will be, according to Vance, no Republican push at the national level to place a limit on abortion at, say, 15 weeks (a position that Vance once advocated), but while states may be more or less restrictive on the subject, all states and all Republicans should advance a broad pro-family agenda that will remove or reduce some of the obstacles that cause some women in difficult circumstances to choose abortion. Republicans should be “pro-family in the fullest sense of the word,” Vance said, and they should focus on “earning the American people’s trust back on this issue where they frankly just don’t trust us.” As the editors of National Review put it early this morning with regard to his entire debate performance, “Vance made as strong a case for Trump as could be made — a better one, in fact, than Trump typically makes for himself.”
All this might very well be a winning message, politically speaking, on the issue of abortion — though of course it can’t be ignored that an emphasis on compassionate pro-family policies is not incompatible with placing a national upward limit on abortion in line with countries such as Germany (12 weeks) or France (14 weeks), and one of the major reasons that many women distrust the Republican Party on this issue is that it has been led for a decade by a man who is a world-famous cad and bounder, lecher and cheat, and who has a well-known reputation for using women as disposable amusements.
But the point is that Vance took this politically difficult problem and managed to thread a needle in which he could defend his running mate and advance a generally conservative pro-family worldview, while also presenting an attractive and appealing face to Republican politics to the undecided or skeptical voter.
The question, therefore, for Vance and the next generation of ambitious Republicans, is: What will they do when they are no longer encumbered by the necessity to defend the sometimes-indefensible and always-controversial Donald Trump?
Could we see a J. D. Vance articulate a trade policy that takes a tough line against the People’s Republic of China and other hostile anti-American regimes but keeps tariffs from ruining the enormously beneficial trade relationships that Americans have with Canada and other friendly Western nations? Could we see a Ron DeSantis advocate for a holistic pro-family, pro-life agenda that leaves room for state-level variation without abandoning efforts to set a national standard for defending unborn life merely out of deference to Trump’s political miscalculations? Could we see a Brian Kemp or a Glenn Youngkin or other rising conservatives forcefully argue that our allies need to pull their own weight in security affairs without Trump’s pattern of flattery and obsequious fawning over foreign tyrants?
This optimistic possibility is not the only path forward, of course. A loss in November or a turbulent second Trump term could provide the incentive structure for ambitious politicians on the right to pursue power by drinking deeply from the dank waters of conspiracy and demagoguery.
But that would be a shame, because J. D. Vance has already proved that Republicans can win debates against Democrats and a hostile press without taking the low road. He proved that a conservative candidate can be forceful, prepared, and dogged in a three-on-one fight against both the debate moderators and his opponent without being a complete ass.
Last night, Americans caught a glimpse of what could be a post-Trump Republican Party that synthesizes the best of the Trump years while jettisoning much of what drove millions of normal people away from Trump or caused them to only reluctantly vote for him. Last night, Americans saw J. D. Vance articulate the beginnings of what could be a successful synthesis of the pre- and post-Trump eras for conservatism.
It could be the future, if only Republican voters start demanding it and rewarding it.