Monster of 2022: J.D. Vance

Liberals will have to now live with the monster they empowered.

Mother Jones; Michael Conroy/AP

In October 2016, less than a month before Donald Trump would be elected President of the United States, J.D. Vance sat down for a conversation at the American Enterprise Institute

This was Vance in his most Atlantic-friendly era, when he was chiefly the author of Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis. This was before Vance was the next Senator from Ohio. Before he grew the beard that a friend said was an attempt at a ā€œsevere masculinism thing.” Before the mea culpas. When he was just a baby-faced venture capitalist turned author living in San Francisco, set to talk at AEI about ā€œthe decline of the white working class.”

Yet, the talk’s host that day would be indicative of his eventual direction. Vance was interviewed by Charles Murray, an emeritus scholar at AEI. In his 1994 book, The Bell Curve, Murray attempted to write a sophisticated case for social darwinism. He believed that social class in the United States was strongly correlated with innate intelligence and that this “cognitive ability” could be measured through IQ scores. He became infamous for sections in the book contrasting the IQ scores of white and Black people. He claimed such differences were the product of something genetically intrinsic to those groups and, therefore, the main explanation of persistent racial inequality. That Vance found Murray to be a worthy interlocutor to discuss the plight of his eastern Kentucky family or the people he grew up with in Middletown, Ohio shouldā€™ve been an early warning that he ignored much when he talked about race, class, and inequality in America. (Just eight minutes into the talk with Vance, the 19th-century race scientist in Murray jumps out as he talks about the ā€œclean Scots-Irish bloodā€ of his ancestors.) 

The combination of the two, Murray and Vance, now makes the subtitle of Vance’s soon-to-be Netflixed memoir jump off the page: “culture in crisis.” In that understanding of poverty, you can see the foundations of the New Right.  

Vance, a Republican who said he did not vote for Trump in 2016, began a stratospheric rise as liberalsā€™ premier “Trump country” translator. Hillbilly Elegy was a massively popular best-seller adapted into an Oscar-nominated film. In a review, the New York Times called the book ā€œa compassionate, discerning sociological analysis of the white underclass.ā€ But this was sociology of Gladwellian rigor. Vance offered narratively compelling, easily digestible explanations to complex problems decades in the making. He claimed a distinct cultural pathology had taken hold in the white working class that ā€œincreasingly encourages social decay instead of counteracting it.ā€ The people he grew up with had tough economic prospects, but their lives ultimately came undone ā€œbecause of some of the decisions they made,ā€ Vance told Murray.

The next part of the story is well-trodden. As Trumpā€™s term progressed Vance woke up. The American elite he became part of at Yale Law School and as a venture capitalist in Silicon Valley hated Trump, Vance believed, simply because the former president stood up for the interests of the downtrodden silent majority of middle America. Vance fashioned himself as a ā€œNew Rightā€ class warrior returning to his salt-of-the-earth roots in Ohio to run for Senate, talking up the need for a renewal of industrial policy and a return to retrograde gender roles as a part of his campaign. The credulous liberals that made up a large part of Vanceā€™s initial audience were recast as his primary enemy: a sneering, self-righteous coterie that represented everything wrong with America. This year, the same man CBS News called on to offer wisdom about the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia in 2017 became one of the foremost purveyors of white grievance politics, going as far as to claim that Joe Biden was trying to kill Trump voters by letting fentanyl come over the US-Mexico border.

In November, Vance defeated Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) to become a US Senator. In his victory speech, he promised to “fight for our families, fight for the people struggling with the opioid addiction problem, fight for the peopleā€”the single moms struggling to raise babies just like my mom raised me.”  

There’s a tendency to see this as a shift. But throughout these phases, while Vance has not always sounded like Trump, he has always sounded like Murray.

The soon-to-be seated Senator has said that Murrayā€™s book on the white working class, Coming Apart, was a major influence on him. It shows. The policy goal that has defined Murrayā€™s career is the elimination of the already-paltry American welfare state. This is why Vanceā€™s vibes-based story of Appalachian poverty was so welcome. Why so many liberals were ready to accept Vance’s narrative of cultural pathology among rural white people in 2016 is because theyā€™d been primed by decades of Democrats and Republicans alike making almost identical arguments about the so-called Black “underclass.” (Bill Clinton said Murrayā€™s “analysis was essentially right” and credited him with informing welfare reform.) The Times review likened Vance calling out the backwardness of white, rural America to President Obama saying ā€œbrothers should pull up their pants.ā€ 

As Karen and Barbara Fields point out in their book Racecraft: The Soul of Inequality in American Life, Murrayā€™s project did not simply represent an attempt to mainstream scientific racism, but was a broad treatise against the concept of social equality. Throughout his career, Murray has arguably been just as preoccupied with poor white people as he has with poor Black people. The Fields point to a sickening 1993 essay Murray originally wrote for the Wall Street Journal entitled “The Coming White Underclass,” where he issued apocalyptic warnings that the lack of two-parent white households would destroy the countryā€™s social fabric. To discourage single motherhood, Murray suggested the state halt support altogether. A pregnant woman ā€œmust get support from somewhere, anywhere, other than the government,ā€ he wrote. If women resisted, Murray recommended mass adoption and to defund social services and spend that money ā€œlavishlyā€ on new orphanages. These policies would work for both Black children and ā€œflawless blue-eyed blond infants,ā€ he wrote.  

Some on the right may see Vance as an eventual successor to build Trumpā€™s brand of national conservatism into a coherent political movement. But his Senate campaign wasnā€™t the rousing success indicative of a future national contender. He was embarrassed onstage at a debate by Tim Ryan, and probably only won the election because he was dragged across the finish line by Ohioā€™s popular incumbent governor, Mike DeWine.

Instead, I think Vance will be Charles Murray in Senatorial form. There might be attempts to shore up his newfound populism with a half-hearted policy here and there, but what’s more likely is that he’ll continue to hone his real talent: rationalizing poverty through subterfuge and racial grievance.

For at least the next six years, liberals will see what itā€™s like to live with the monster they created. 


As usual, the staff of Mother Jones is rounding up the heroes and monsters of the past year. Find all of 2022ā€™s here.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate