Un-Diplomatic

Un-Diplomatic

Share this post

Un-Diplomatic
Un-Diplomatic
The Violent Promise of Vance-Politik
Copy link
Facebook
Email
Notes
More

The Violent Promise of Vance-Politik

From the homeless to a new global color line to immigrant “safe havens,” the harm will be absorbed by the unseen and the unheard.

Un-Diplomatic
Jul 21, 2024
∙ Paid
9

Share this post

Un-Diplomatic
Un-Diplomatic
The Violent Promise of Vance-Politik
Copy link
Facebook
Email
Notes
More
1
4
Share
AFL-CIO legislative scorecard graphic that shows JD Vance cast no votes with working people.

While I’ve been at a mind-jolting workshop in Canberra about “progressive” foreign policy, my head has just been spinning the entire time from everything going on in the world. Countless political cross-currents happening at the speed of Twitter right now.

But the J.D. Vance thing stands out as singularly significant, in part because people can’t help but comment on it while appearing to be confused about what the Vance nomination actually means for everything from the defense budget to “great-power competition,” and from NATO to war in America.

This take, for example, from Murtaza Hussain—who is generally of quite sound mind—totally misreads Vance based purely on a selectively hopeful reading of Vance’s rhetoric.

I’ve made it a point to digest every Vance speech, quote, or piece of writing since 2017 (or at least as much of it as I could find). Not because I thought he’d be Veep.

Rather, initially, I was trying to understand right-wing #NeverTrumpers (he had once been one). But Vance also intrigued me because it was obvious from the beginning that he was a class subversive, cosplaying as an Appalachian working-class explainer while actually following a typical Ivy-League-to-finance-bro pipeline. He was exploiting, rather than representing, a particular rural, white working-class grievance—and that made his presentation distinct from typical defenders of ruling-class privilege.

Now, you don’t need me to tell you all the reasons why he’s a bad candidate or a danger or whatever. Plenty of people doing that right now.

What I can add is an explanation of:

  1. How Vance’s ideas about violence are explicitly racialized (envisioning a Global Color Line),

  2. Why a Trump-Vance presidency will never yield foreign-policy realism (because of neocon infiltration), and

  3. How the political terrain we’re operating on has changed (Washington’s foreign policy imagination is becoming post-hegemonic in a particularly reactionary direction).

This post is for paid subscribers

Already a paid subscriber? Sign in
© 2025 Van Jackson
Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice
Start writingGet the app
Substack is the home for great culture

Share

Copy link
Facebook
Email
Notes
More