Ironically (considering his comments about German immigrants) Vance is much more in the vein of Germanic romanticism than traditional Anglo rationalism and liberalism.
I agree wholeheartedly with the diagnosis of Vance's weirdness emanating from his illberal ideology, but that's nothing new in American history, and I'll have to disagree with your characterisation of America as a fundamentally liberal country. There's always been a current of reactionary Christian nationalism running alongside America's liberal ideals.The successful resistance to reconstruction through violence, the 1924 Immigration Restriction Act, a sitting president telling his French counterpart that Gog and Magog is at work in the middle east, these are not regrettable moments of deviation from a linear progress towards a liberal future predermined by America's foundation, it is the outwards manifestation of this second trend in the American politica psyche. JD Vance, in my very humble opinion, does not represent a new phenomenon, he is following in the footsteps of, amongst others, Charles Lindbergh, Phyllis Schlafly, and Jerry Falwell; he is the latest frontman of American Christian nationalism.
Vance is particularly interesting because unlike the Christian Nationalist tradition in this country (people you've already mentioned plus the Know-Nothings among others) that was originally anti-Catholic in nature and defined America as a strictly Protestant country, Vance himself is a Catholic (albeit a convert). Vance is the culmination of the Christian Right that goes across denominational lines, but he still uses lots of nativist rhetoric (eg his "Gangs of New York" comment about Italians, Poles, and Germans). I think it's his very strong nativist, blood-and-soil-esque rhetoric that differentiates him from most other modern politicians of the right (yes America has had nativist streaks for a long time, but those have largely died since 60s). Like Reagan and the Bushes extolled the virtue of the ability for anyone to come to America and become American; that's anathema to Vance.
You can't say always and start in the 1920's. John Brown is probably the most interesting figure from that perspective the 1840's. But I can't think of any older similar figures, in part because Christianity had remembered the religious wars, didn't want to fight them again, and fundamentalism didn't exist. Maybe the proslavery Baptists? I just don't know enough about their beliefs.
Beautifully written. I, for a non-American, am often amazed by how your political narrative often artificially narrow the sense and conception of what "liberalism" means. A social demorat and a christian democrat in the post-war European sense are definitely both "liberal" to the core from the eyes of a 19th century restorationist.
No I mean it’s no so much any of that stuff as it is the distinct ideological environment he came up with surrounded by guys like Dreher, Vermuele, or Deneen who very explicitly reject liberalism as an ideological construct and want to see a different (post-liberal/integralist) ideological framework established.
Ironically (considering his comments about German immigrants) Vance is much more in the vein of Germanic romanticism than traditional Anglo rationalism and liberalism.
Oh man I’m not even gonna touch that one
I agree wholeheartedly with the diagnosis of Vance's weirdness emanating from his illberal ideology, but that's nothing new in American history, and I'll have to disagree with your characterisation of America as a fundamentally liberal country. There's always been a current of reactionary Christian nationalism running alongside America's liberal ideals.The successful resistance to reconstruction through violence, the 1924 Immigration Restriction Act, a sitting president telling his French counterpart that Gog and Magog is at work in the middle east, these are not regrettable moments of deviation from a linear progress towards a liberal future predermined by America's foundation, it is the outwards manifestation of this second trend in the American politica psyche. JD Vance, in my very humble opinion, does not represent a new phenomenon, he is following in the footsteps of, amongst others, Charles Lindbergh, Phyllis Schlafly, and Jerry Falwell; he is the latest frontman of American Christian nationalism.
Vance is particularly interesting because unlike the Christian Nationalist tradition in this country (people you've already mentioned plus the Know-Nothings among others) that was originally anti-Catholic in nature and defined America as a strictly Protestant country, Vance himself is a Catholic (albeit a convert). Vance is the culmination of the Christian Right that goes across denominational lines, but he still uses lots of nativist rhetoric (eg his "Gangs of New York" comment about Italians, Poles, and Germans). I think it's his very strong nativist, blood-and-soil-esque rhetoric that differentiates him from most other modern politicians of the right (yes America has had nativist streaks for a long time, but those have largely died since 60s). Like Reagan and the Bushes extolled the virtue of the ability for anyone to come to America and become American; that's anathema to Vance.
You can't say always and start in the 1920's. John Brown is probably the most interesting figure from that perspective the 1840's. But I can't think of any older similar figures, in part because Christianity had remembered the religious wars, didn't want to fight them again, and fundamentalism didn't exist. Maybe the proslavery Baptists? I just don't know enough about their beliefs.
(ah was supposed to be a reply to another comment but substack put it wrong after I logged in)
Beautifully written. I, for a non-American, am often amazed by how your political narrative often artificially narrow the sense and conception of what "liberalism" means. A social demorat and a christian democrat in the post-war European sense are definitely both "liberal" to the core from the eyes of a 19th century restorationist.
Post-liberals, don't tread on me
I think we can conclude now that this was not correct. It was just an intense media campaign that has worn off with the vp debate.
Not the first non-liberal at the national level.
Bernie Sanders is a socialist.
Democratic socialist, which is still well within the range of liberalism.
Honestly he’s really just a social democrat anyways
No I mean it’s no so much any of that stuff as it is the distinct ideological environment he came up with surrounded by guys like Dreher, Vermuele, or Deneen who very explicitly reject liberalism as an ideological construct and want to see a different (post-liberal/integralist) ideological framework established.