Well, my dad is a financial planner, and although there was never any pressure, it was always kind of assumed from a young age that I'd follow him into that sector. Failing that, my mom was a lawyer, and I was no slouch in understanding the law.
But I was also always a bit of a "golden child" -- not to humblebrag or anything, but it was known pretty early on that I was pretty bright, and I knew it just as much as the adults did. The expectation would've been that I'd have gone on to a much higher level of finance or law -- somewhere closer to where Vance ended up.
I also was raised as a Catholic and a conservative Republican. Private super-selective high school, applied to Ivies, etc. Only got waitlisted at Princeton due to a screwup they had processing my application -- I doubt I'd have gotten in outright -- but there's a reasonable chance things might have turned out different; college admissions are notoriously arbitrary, after all.
So on net, a lot of my life story could have ended up like his. I might easily have gone to an Ivy, gone into finance or law, blah blah blah, and stayed a conservative Republican.
I agree with you. I cringe watching JD up there and I'm pretty angry about him cucking for Trump. But still I can't help thinking that if someone would just shake him really hard and then have a deep heart-to-heart that he could turn back into a decent human being and statesman.
This is a little odd because it’s extremely hard to “know yourself” if you’re a politician in a representative democracy. I mean, your job is to be an ideological weathervane / party apparatchik. Donald Trump does know himself I guess, but not necessarily in a good way. Older politicians like Biden and Schumer have sort of let politics and the search for power hollow them out and provide any inner core they have, so they know themselves that way I guess. Does Kamala Harris know herself?
Here’s a fair statement to make; none of these politicians ‘know’ themselves and we can’t possibly know them. They are filtered avatars to most of us and our final analysis really comes down to what filter won out on our algorithm.
Vance defended and doubled down on his cat-lady comments in July of this year. The point stands. His talking point and mentality mirrored those of the online right, and it blew up in his face.
Yes, that's why Trump's Truth Social page is so full of intellectual substance and lacks platitudes. (sarcasm) If you're supporting Trump, you clearly are comfortable with platitudes and narcissistic navel-gazing.
Harris is not that smart. Her commentary is often vacuous. I am supporting her as the lesser of two evils, which I've made clear. The bar is low, as you say. But I find your argument that Trump represents more intellectual substance laughable. You can say you agree with Trump's policies more, and that's fine. But the former argument is, I believe, quite dumb.
“WW3 is preferable to mean tweets” take of the day. 😂. Psycho Babble edition
I have my criticisms of Trump… but peace isn’t one of them.
Foreign policy dictates domestic policy. Not the other way around.
Ignore literally everything else and Compare 4 years of Trump vs 4 years of Biden/Harris regarding foreign affairs. Then explain how the Afghanistan withdrawal was well executed to me like a 5 year old. You can’t. Because “mean tweets” means more than the reality of people dying or WW3 being possible on like 4 different fronts.
Who are you? Someone who hasn’t and won’t serve in any combat role in any entanglement your support of bad policy brings. A man with no skin in the game. A man incapable of violence. Stop cucking for WW3.
He’s taken on a mission that I consider patriotic: running with a man who, imperfections aside, is a thousand times better for our country than Kamala Harris. The “online right”, meanwhile, has its own imperfections but is striking closer to the truth about human nature and the limits of policy. I’m voting Trump/Vance.
As Hanania noted, Vance needed the eyeliner to complete his transformation from Middle American hillbilly to Mediterranean-looking shitposter
🤣
It is interesting to see in him a direction my life could have gone.
what do you mean? say more. (or don't if that's too invasive.)
Well, my dad is a financial planner, and although there was never any pressure, it was always kind of assumed from a young age that I'd follow him into that sector. Failing that, my mom was a lawyer, and I was no slouch in understanding the law.
But I was also always a bit of a "golden child" -- not to humblebrag or anything, but it was known pretty early on that I was pretty bright, and I knew it just as much as the adults did. The expectation would've been that I'd have gone on to a much higher level of finance or law -- somewhere closer to where Vance ended up.
I also was raised as a Catholic and a conservative Republican. Private super-selective high school, applied to Ivies, etc. Only got waitlisted at Princeton due to a screwup they had processing my application -- I doubt I'd have gotten in outright -- but there's a reasonable chance things might have turned out different; college admissions are notoriously arbitrary, after all.
So on net, a lot of my life story could have ended up like his. I might easily have gone to an Ivy, gone into finance or law, blah blah blah, and stayed a conservative Republican.
Always good to see smart people criticizing their own side of the isle. It's an extremely rare virtue in a polarized world.
Looking forward to reading this because your articles are always great, Jeff!
Thank you
I wrote a piece relevant to your question, "Does he [JD Vance] know who he is?" https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/cui-bono/202408/does-j-d-vance-have-a-personality
Thanks. I was going out on a limb with my psychoanalysis, and this is validating.
“Cat-eating Haitians” isn’t a lie
The online right at this point is a system that turns everything into $hit. Courtesy of this blog.
https://www.thehebrewconservative.com/2024/09/11/why-i-am-no-longer-on-the-online-right/
Ha, I like the diagram
Same with the online left too. Online just sucks. Except this part, this part is fine. Totally different...
Lol, good to know.
I agree with you. I cringe watching JD up there and I'm pretty angry about him cucking for Trump. But still I can't help thinking that if someone would just shake him really hard and then have a deep heart-to-heart that he could turn back into a decent human being and statesman.
Bravo and Amen!
thanks John, happy travels
Nice piece. Except I think these guys go to the Monroe Instutue instead of Hoffman now. And is like both sides to lose for introspection purposes ;)
Ha, thanks. Will check out the Monroe Institute - wasn't familiar.
This is a little odd because it’s extremely hard to “know yourself” if you’re a politician in a representative democracy. I mean, your job is to be an ideological weathervane / party apparatchik. Donald Trump does know himself I guess, but not necessarily in a good way. Older politicians like Biden and Schumer have sort of let politics and the search for power hollow them out and provide any inner core they have, so they know themselves that way I guess. Does Kamala Harris know herself?
Here’s a fair statement to make; none of these politicians ‘know’ themselves and we can’t possibly know them. They are filtered avatars to most of us and our final analysis really comes down to what filter won out on our algorithm.
the childless cat ladies comment from JD Vance was from year ago i believe.
Vance defended and doubled down on his cat-lady comments in July of this year. The point stands. His talking point and mentality mirrored those of the online right, and it blew up in his face.
Yes, that's why Trump's Truth Social page is so full of intellectual substance and lacks platitudes. (sarcasm) If you're supporting Trump, you clearly are comfortable with platitudes and narcissistic navel-gazing.
Harris is not that smart. Her commentary is often vacuous. I am supporting her as the lesser of two evils, which I've made clear. The bar is low, as you say. But I find your argument that Trump represents more intellectual substance laughable. You can say you agree with Trump's policies more, and that's fine. But the former argument is, I believe, quite dumb.
“WW3 is preferable to mean tweets” take of the day. 😂. Psycho Babble edition
I have my criticisms of Trump… but peace isn’t one of them.
Foreign policy dictates domestic policy. Not the other way around.
Ignore literally everything else and Compare 4 years of Trump vs 4 years of Biden/Harris regarding foreign affairs. Then explain how the Afghanistan withdrawal was well executed to me like a 5 year old. You can’t. Because “mean tweets” means more than the reality of people dying or WW3 being possible on like 4 different fronts.
Who are you? Someone who hasn’t and won’t serve in any combat role in any entanglement your support of bad policy brings. A man with no skin in the game. A man incapable of violence. Stop cucking for WW3.
He’s taken on a mission that I consider patriotic: running with a man who, imperfections aside, is a thousand times better for our country than Kamala Harris. The “online right”, meanwhile, has its own imperfections but is striking closer to the truth about human nature and the limits of policy. I’m voting Trump/Vance.
https://h1bpajeet.substack.com/p/jd-vance-is-an-incel
He’s made a deal l, considering the scale of what he’s against (people you are now supporting). You’re backing the unicorns here.