60
votes
JD Vance’s wife: My husband only meant to insult people who actively choose not to have kids, not people who are trying but are unsuccessful
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Authors
- Bess Levin, Anna Peele, Richard Lawson, Erin Vanderhoof, Savannah Walsh
- Published
- Aug 5 2024
- Word count
- 308 words
I’m not sure if bringing attention to this is making it better for him
If he wanted to really sell it, he'd know not to air out the subtleties. Be unapologetic like his running mate and he'll do well with that crowd.
The Daily ran an interview with a trans law school friend of his who says that his turn to the far right is purely cynical, and that (from correspondence) he's not the kind of guy we're seeing today.
It's not like you need to start as an evildoer to become one later on, but if you're going to commit, you can't still be decent some of the time.
Honestly I think his friend is coping. We all tend to want to think the best of people we associate with, but having myself gone through the prestigious school and high-achieving career pipeline I’ve encountered a lot of guys like Vance. The only principle they hold deeply are a desire for prestige for its own sake. Everything else they will don or shed as is convenient to them. Their core emotional mode of operating is an ill formed rage against the world for not giving them what they feel they are owed.
When it was a prestige-maximizing principle to respect Black people and trans people and womens’ rights while he attended Yale Law School those were the principles he held to. When those stopped being cool within his social sphere, as he became ensconced in neo-monarchical Silicon Valley conservatism, he changed. It’s not a conscious choice to adapt in this way, he’s like a sponge who is going to soak up the values of the milieu he’s in to mirror them back to those around him. This is because he seeks prestige and is conditioned to get it this way by being the “goodest boy.”
There’s a fair amount of “never Trumper” Republicans I knew in grad school and my early-20s who have almost all gone wingnut over the past 6ish years. The being in a cosmopolitan environment had them being open and tolerant before, but after the pandemic they’ve cut themselves off and gone into weird crevices of the internet full of Groypers and other assorted shitheads. Vance looks and sounds exactly like every one of them, especially down to the general resentment towards their liberal friends and colleagues for not recognizing the merits of their “iconoclastic” ideas.
From what I read that friend cut him off in the past few years, so it read to me more as a "this isn't who he was in the past" not that "he isn't this way now he's just faking" but I may have missed some broader context or it may have been a different trans friend.
I think it’s the same one. I probably just misread that bit in the article.
I focused more on the emails themselves so I could have missed additional context from the reporting. Either way.
Great take - one that furthers the idea that forever opportunists are practicing sociopathic habits day in and day out -- all in service of the ultimate prize.
What I don't get is why. Is it easier or more advantageous to be a chameleon? It can't be more personally rewarding -- having those who you once considered your trusted confidant and friend not be able to see some aspect of the real you -- that's gotta sting for anybody.
I thought Ezra Klein had a great take on this (YouTube mirror here). It reflects both what he wrote in Why We're Polarized as well as a lot of the ideas in How Minds Change: The Surprising Science of Belief, Opinion, and Persuasion by David McRaney.
Basically, Ezra Klein argues that Vance's transformation should not be seen as purely opportunistic but rather as a sincere, albeit troubling, ideological shift. Klein describes Vance's change from a civility-driven individual to someone marked by antagonism and contempt, attributing this shift to Vance's alignment with the pro-Trump base and a reaction against Trump’s critics. Klein notes that Vance's conversion likely began with a hatred of Trump's enemies, not an initial support for Trump. He compares this to the phenomenon of "the zeal of the convert," where individuals who undergo ideological shifts often become more extreme in their new beliefs. Klein acknowledges the opportunistic elements of Vance's transformation, given his political ambitions, but emphasizes the sincerity of his conversion. He criticizes the cultural and temperamental changes in Vance, highlighting the loss of political virtue and the adoption of a contemptuous attitude towards opponents.
In my personal observation of people I know (or have known), some people settle on their ideological views pretty early in life, usually around the time that they become independent from their parents and start shaping their worldview around their own observations. They do still change over time, but those changes are typically gradual or piecemeal. Even if they have unusual and intense views, they are often not seem as extremists by the people around them (even friends who disagree with them) because their opinions are so steady.
But other people I have known will completely remake themselves every few years and can rapidly adopt ideologies that are the polar opposite of what they believed previously.
For example, I knew quite a few conservative Libertarians in the 00s, when that was a trendy ideology. Even though they all basically agreed with each other on paper, only some of them struck me as extremists (aggressive toward any disagreement, repeating slogans instead of making reasoned arguments, and really absorbing any and all cultural associations — wearing stereotypical clothes, listening to stereotypical music, etc.).
The ones who didn't strike me as extremists then still hold the same views today. They have all largely dropped out of the politics because they are deeply unhappy with all the parties and candidates they might vote for, but if I ask them question about their views, they still express the same ideals as they had 20 years ago.
The ones who struck me as extremists then still strike me as extremists now, except now they are tankies of the worst kind (in favor of Russia invading Ukraine, in favor of Trump over Bernie Sanders for accelerationist purposes, etc.). Before that, they were radical feminists — something they are definitely not now! — and so on. They have never struck me as opportunists. I think they feel their opinions genuinely, because they sacrifice so much for them: their reputations, their jobs, their friendships, their marriages, their relationships with their children, etc. It comes across more like a compulsion to entrench themselves in a community, in a way that is simultaneously extensive and shallow.
But it's not just limited to political ideology. I've seen it with a lot of things. For example, I know quite a lot of people who have become vegans: some of them changed their diet and their purchasing habits to avoid animal products, and others made veganism the whole of their identity and seemingly shoveled every other aspect of their personality. The former are all still vegan to a T, but none of the latter are — they have scattered to other extreme diets, like keto and zero-carb.
I have seen the exact same patterns with music, fashion, hobbies, religion, etc.
I am still fond of the people in my life who do this and feel a great deal of sympathy for them. Every single person I have known like this has had a thoroughly miserable and lonely childhood, and they have never found their footing since — but it's so, so hard to be their friend. I never feel like I can see who they truly are inside because they continually wrap themselves up in this parade of identities, and they become hostile toward me for not doing the same. I make a point to never lose my temper and cut them out of my life, though they often do it to me (and then reach out a few years later when they adopt a new identity), but I can never be close to them like I can with friends who show me who they are and who accept me as I am.
Vance 100% strikes me as one of these people. Poor guy.
This is kind of my sister. Ever since our mom died when we were in our early twenties, she has been trying to find the "perfect" diet that is going to protect her from aging and disease. For a long time she was vegan, and now she's almost a carnivore. She is a sucker for every wellness influencer on Instagram. It's sad.
On the Vance thing, I thought this New York Times article (that I believe I found here, actually) had another interesting, rather similar take.
In both cases, there is a sort of identity disturbance going on. And it sounds like that could be used to describe the inconsistent people you've encountered as well.
Right? He should just double and triple down. Unless he was going to, until learning that many in R aren't having kids either and it polls badly even among his own camp.
His wife supposedly also worked at a very progressive law firm until she quite just for the campaign. Not that surprising given Trump was originally democrat as well. These three aren't R or D or Independent, they've always been about grabbing opportunities for money and power
They are not progressive in any meaningful way, that idea came from this article that just says they have some good benefits and don't only hire white people: https://www.mto.com/Templates/media/files/Reprints/AmLaw/Munger%20Tolles%20Did%20It%20Why%20Cant%20You.pdf. In practice though they are a normal corporate law firm who will defend anyone that pays. See their website for the cases they're most proud of : https://www.mto.com/practices-industries/practices/labor-and-employment/
etc.
It's O for Oligarch. They should just take the wrapping paper off. Its the: for profit, for power by any means possible party.
Well we gotta have wrappings, otherwise the people will be mad to find out both parties are O. "No, not MY party, it's them!"
Just say what they want to hear and ride whichever wave comes up next. Fucking infuriating how effective it is for winning politicians everywhere.
Saying the reason our fertility rate is heading downward is due to government policy is fucking nuts, unless you mean it's a result of our collective refusal to rein in predatory capitalism. I'm frankly amazed that so many people manage to have children considering the cost of housing, food and medicine relative to income these days.
Somehow I think Vance is more the "chain her to the cooker" type than the "let's regulate housing and medicine better" type, though.
You know it's going well when a spouse has to be trotted out to explain their partner's comments. Can you imagine the uproar if Doug Emhoff had to explain a comment Mrs. Harris made?
And how is this explanation better? It sounds like damage control for the base "Oh no, he wasn't talking about you." Like "oh no, he wasn't ablist, he was misogynist."
Ah good, he only meant to insult people like me, I feel much better now :^)
After all, we're destroying the fabric of America by not replenishing the work force.
I've heard many historians argue the population loss from the Black Death ushered in advances in social equality, agriculture, technology, and the arts. I've even heard quite a few historians argue that the Italian Renaissance likely would not have happened without it.
A smaller population means every individual person is more valued. They are better cared for, their ideas are listened to, and they are promoted to positions where they can make a bigger difference.
I've never heard this idea before, but I really like it and it easily aligns with my understanding of humanity and community. I, personally, relish the idea of a smaller humanity and an earth reborn, even though I don't want to diminish what the transition years may hurt like for those who live through it, but it seems like humanity is doing to the entire planet what humans worry a single invasive species does to a small ecosystem.
Off-topic: please tag this as politics, though it would've been more appropriate to post in the weekly US politics thread. Author and source are also standard tags, folks also try to filter out certain sites.
Not every thread relating to US politics has to go in the megathread. It's good that the megathread exists as a place for smaller stories, but unless threads about US politics are flooding the front page and blocking out other discussion, it's doing its job without people being actively pointed there whenever they post a topic about US politics.
As for tags, the mods here are usually pretty quick to add missing ones and clean them up. So usually missing tags like what you mention here are solved quickly.
I'm wondering if we need a meta conversation about this going into the fall US election. New folks don't always understand tagging and @ ing one of the mods would be more useful than just posting.
Plus once the post is made it's probably worth keeping.
The megathread is annoying if you don't keep your setting on the right one to see things up to a week old.
There is only 1 mod but there are plenty of tag curators. People only need to worry about tagging if they’re interested in doing it as a community service. It’s appreciated but not required. Someone will come along and tag up the post eventually if you don’t.
If you’re interested in being one of them, you can message Deimos for permissions.
Yeah I had the wrong name.
I don't feel like I ever tag things "correctly" and it's annoyingly opaque process to me. So not really interested. And that wasn't my actual point!
I mention feeling like we need to have a meta convo because of comments like the top one in this thread which pop up when people find them before being tagged and it's not really helpful to the OP when they're told not to worry about tagging. Similar to the megathread comments. It just comes across as sort of hostile and unwelcoming (even if that's not the actual vibe), and I'm sure the commenters are equally annoyed that their US politics filter isn't working.
There are going to be more political posts, I assume, between now and the election and it's probably worth having that community conversation rather than just ignoring it.
Yeah I tend to flag the meta-comments as “noise” to downrank them because I think they’re distracting from discussion and bad for the vibe. Though it does end up being a notification the OP gets regardless of rank so it probably doesn’t help there.
Same, I'm just thinking we might want or have the convo as it has happened in the announcement of the VP thread already. But I feel like John Adams in 1776 and don't think I should make the post.
This is wise. In all the long years of my internet life I have never regretted not posting. Haha
I'm obnoxious and disliked did you know that?
I like you. Can't argue about obnoxious, though. :)
乁( •_• )ㄏ
I exist in the context... ^_^
Seconded, I like you. Even within the context
I genuinely didn't intend to fish for friendship
Thank you, I don't feel ostracized or anything 💜
You're right, I just found it a bit funny that this post was next to someone asking how to filter out politics and noticing that they couldn't filter this one out without filtering news altogether. I also appreciated when someone pointed out to me that author and source were good starting points for tags. I'd rather we encourage better tagging practices than rely on them to fix it.
Tagged. Ideally there would be a politics sub? Still learning the ropes.
Politics subs attract undesirables and are a moderation headache
You're golden, I was just meaning to give general pointers, pardon if I sounded terse. As another pointed out, someone will come along tidy up your posts with tags for you. And even utilizing the weekly thread isn't necessarily more proper either, I just personally would organize it that way.