With Donald Trump's selection of Senator J.D. Vance of Ohio as his running mate, the former (and potential future) president "probably had more on his mind than 2024," wrote Matthew Continetti in a Times guest essay yesterday. "He was probably thinking of 2028 and beyond — and where he wants the G.O.P. to go." Continetti, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of "The Right: The Hundred Year War for American Conservatism," joined other voices in Times Opinion's coverage of the announcement — including a lively columnist discussion. And in May the Times columnist Ross Douthat held a wide-ranging interview with the senator. Vance is no stranger to Times Opinion. In April he wrote a guest essay arguing against further military aid for Ukraine. And before he became a senator, from 2016 to 2017, he was a Times contributing Opinion writer. In a brief Q. and A. with Continetti, I dug a little deeper into his guest essay on the Vance selection and what it says about the direction of the Republican Party. In a round table after the announcement of J.D. Vance as Donald Trump's vice-presidential pick, the Times columnist Ross Douthat wrote that "in practice I expect him to be much more of an Asia-first Republican and would-be Nixonian or George H.W. Bushian figure than a Pat Buchanan-style, 'Come home, America' paleoconservative." You are a historian of conservatism. Given what we know about Vance, does that sound plausible? The line sounds plausible, for sure, because it comes from someone who has interviewed Vance many times. But I would note that neither Nixon nor George H.W. Bush was an Asia-first Republican. Both presidents believed in a strong America that exercised global leadership. Both presidents were committed to the NATO alliance and to other allies and partners. Both presidents were realists who downplayed the role of ideals and values and human rights in foreign policy but who also intervened abroad on many occasions. National populists like Vance seem much less eager to intervene militarily and more interested in revising or withdrawing from American commitments overseas and in building industrial strength at home. In 2021 you wrote a very interesting piece about Vance — which, I think it's fair to say, was a more critical, or at least skeptical, assessment of him and the New Right. You wrote about "the confusion that arises when a movement anchors itself to the personality of one former president, when a movement neglects the principles of political and economic freedom that guided it for so many years." Since then, do you think Vance and others in the national populism movement have done enough to clarify their thinking on the relation of economics and culture? Vance and his comrades have assembled a thick portfolio of ideas for the next Republican administration. Some of these proposals are too confident in the capacities of regulators and bureaucrats to manage economic activity and are too willing to overlook the unintended consequences of government action. In a historical irony, one check on national populism in the coming years may well be the very personality of Trump. While he agrees with the populists on immigration, trade and entitlements, he also has been less inclined to regulate labor markets, redistribute income or adopt more intrusive approaches to antitrust law. And he always leaves considerable room for negotiation and improvisation. In a different round table, with Frank Bruni and Olivia Nuzzi, you suggested that Gov. Glenn Youngkin of Virginia would be the vice-presidential nominee with the most potential upside for Trump. Where do you think a Youngkin nomination would have left the Republican Party? My view was that Youngkin would have upended the electoral map. Trump is already ahead in most battleground state polling. Youngkin might have helped Trump capture Virginia and appealed to independents and suburban voters in New Hampshire, Colorado and Minnesota. Youngkin also would have been a bridge between the Trump world and the business community. My view now is that Trump went with Vance because Trump believes he is on track to win the election. He wants a vice president who can help the MAGA movement govern and who will set the future direction of the G.O.P. I don't think Trump feels the need to treat the Republican Party as a coalition any longer. It's his party, the Trump Party. And if Trump wins in November, it might be the Vance Party one day, as well. Here's what we're focusing on today:
We hope you've enjoyed this newsletter, which is made possible through subscriber support. Subscribe to The New York Times. Games Here are today's Mini Crossword, Wordle and Spelling Bee. If you're in the mood to play more, find all our games here. Forward this newsletter to friends to share ideas and perspectives that will help inform their lives. They can sign up here. Do you have feedback? Email us at opiniontoday@nytimes.com. If you have questions about your Times account, delivery problems or other issues, visit our Help Page or contact The Times.
|
Wednesday, July 17, 2024
Opinion Today: The meaning of Trump’s Vance pick
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment