The Republican ticket for 2024 is to be Donald Trump and J. D. Vance. A couple of weeks ago, I wrote the following:
In recent years, there has been a debate: Is Trumpism a continuation — even a culmination or consummation — of the conservative movement launched by Buckley and others, or is it a break from it? I believe it is a break, and a sharp one.
Last December, J. D. Vance talked to Steve Bannon, making the following charge: “There are people who would cut Social Security, throw our grandparents into poverty. Why? So that one of Zelensky’s ministers can buy a bigger yacht?”
The conservatives I knew, in the pre-Trump era, would have been disgusted by this statement: by the gross demagoguery; by the mouthing of Kremlin propaganda. These things were the opposite of what we stood for.
For decades, conservatives urged the reform of entitlements, saying it was necessary to preserve the basic system and to avoid financial collapse. And Democrats said — just what J. D. Vance says: that we wanted to “throw our grandparents into poverty.”
In 2012, the Republican vice-presidential nominee was Paul Ryan — a man very different from Vance. A Democratic group actually cut an ad that showed Ryan pushing a grandmother, wheelchair-bound, off a cliff. You can read about it, and watch it, here.
What about the second part of Vance’s statement? “So that one of Zelensky’s ministers can buy a bigger yacht?” This comes straight out of the Kremlin’s propaganda farm. To see a report from the BBC — “How pro-Russian ‘yacht’ propaganda influenced US debate over Ukraine aid” — go here.
More recently, Kremlin propaganda has put it about that Mrs. Zelensky bought a luxury sports car with U.S. tax dollars. This, of course, was swallowed and regurgitated by the usual crowd in the Free World. (The BBC has reported on this, too: “A Bugatti car, a first lady and the fake stories aimed at Americans.”)
While campaigning for the Senate in 2022, Vance said — to Steve Bannon, the go-to guy — “I gotta be honest with you, I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another.”
In the Senate, Vance took the place of another Republican, Rob Portman, who had retired. Portman had been the co-chairman of the Senate Ukraine Caucus. Nothing more neatly illustrates the trajectory of the Republican Party than the replacement of Portman by Vance.
Speaking to Fox News a year ago, Vance said, “The profit motives of the defense contractors are motivating our posture in Ukraine.” He further said, “We need to stop supporting the Ukraine war effort.”
Writing about this in February, I said,
Think of those words. The Ukrainians are trying to repel an invasion by a monstrous neighbor. They are fighting and dying to hang on to their country — to keep from being dragged back into an evil empire. They are fighting for their very right to exist.
“We need to stop supporting the Ukraine war effort”? What a repulsive way to put it.
My article was headed “Vance and Zelensky.” (The Republican has been relentlessly hostile to the Ukrainian president, and, of course, to Ukraine’s cause overall.) My article concluded,
J. D. Vance is a darling of the GOP — and of CPAC, Fox, Heritage, Turning Point. The whole show. He may be vice president one day — or president. I hope he will exhibit a fraction of the mettle of Volodymyr Zelensky.
Some days, Republicans say, “This is not your father’s GOP. This is not your father’s conservative movement. It’s a new day and a new way. There’s a new sheriff in town — and his name is ‘Donald J. Trump.’ He’s got deputies like J. D. Vance. Hop on the train or git crushed.”
Other days, they plead, “No, no. Trump is just like Buckley, Goldwater, Reagan — their natural heir. A little rough around the edges, maybe — not as eloquent, not as informed, not as polished — but their descendant and perpetuator nonetheless.”
No sale.
I repeat just one of the statements by J. D. Vance: “There are people who would cut Social Security, throw our grandparents into poverty. Why? So that one of Zelensky’s ministers can buy a bigger yacht?” Yes, the conservatives I knew would have been repulsed. And they would have been right.