How JD Vance Became a Normie

By now, Tuesday night’s debate between JD Vance and Tim Walz has been thoroughly chewed over, and you’ve probably moved on. After all, as is usually the case for vice presidential face-offs, this one did little—maybe nothing—to impact the outcome of the 2024 election. A vice presidential pick rarely, if ever, is a determining factor in a presidential contest. Ditto for a veep debate. Vance’s multiple lies about his abortion stance, climate change, immigration, and many other matters, as well as Walz’s few stumbles, will not make a difference and are mostly forgotten by now. That may even be true for the one big moment of the evening: when Vance refused to acknowledge that Trump lost the 2020 election and demonstrated that, as normal as he tried to be during this debate, he was still an election-denying Trump cultist.

But the debate did illuminate an important element of American politics: Right-wing extremism usually doesn’t receive the attention it deserves.

Vance, as I’ve reported, has frequently made common cause with far-right radicals. Yet none of these associations were raised or discussed at the debate.

After becoming a best-selling author with Hillbilly Elegy in 2016, Vance adopted the public persona of a center-right public intellectual. He was a Trump critic but would eagerly discuss why Trump voters were drawn to the failed casino owner. He came across as a reasonable and thoughtful fellow and was invited to write op-eds and appear on cable news shows. Following his conversion to Catholicism—after he apparently found the success of punditry and think-tanking empty—he became a harsh and abrasive conservative culture warrior and has since hobnobbed with assorted right-wing extremists. But on the debate stage, Vance did his best to return to the sensible-sounding fellow he once played on cable TV. And little got in his way.

There were so many troubling connections and statements Vance could have been asked about. Here’s a sampling, including items I have previously written about. (So excuse me if I’m repeating myself.)

* Vance has embraced Christian nationalism. Just this past weekend, he appeared at an event organized and emceed by Lance Wallnau, a leader of Christian nationalism who has called for fundamentalist Christians to take over the government and all major structures of society. Wallnau believes Kamala Harris won her debate against Trump due to “witchcraft.” Right before Russia invaded Ukraine, he claimed the “CIA and Hillary Clinton tried to invade Russia to undercut Putin to bring the LGBT doctrine in.”

* A few months ago, Vance endorsed a book co-written by a right-wing conspiracy theorist that labeled progressives, environmentalists, reproductive right advocates, academics, media people, corporate officers, and liberal church leaders as “unhumans” and claimed they all want to annihilate civilization—literally. This book also praised fascist dictators Augusto Pinochet of Chile and Francisco Franco of Spain for using violence to defeat leftists.

* In 2022, Vance told a conservative podcaster—who once declared, “Feminists need rape”—that a “garbage liberal elite culture” that teaches citizens to hate America and that is dominated by wokeism, globalism, and social progressivism must be ripped out “like a tumor.” On this show, he compared his political foes to the Nazis of Germany and the Baathists of Iraq and declared they had to be purged. He said that if Trump returned to the White House, he should ignore and contravene the law to mount an illegal effort to purge the civil service of anyone who was not loyal to the Trump cause: “When the courts stop you, stand before the country...and say the chief justice has made his ruling, now let him enforce it.” Vance cited Hungarian autocrat Viktor Orbán as a role model for a second Trump presidency and asserted that desperate times require desperate measures: “We’ll have to get pretty wild, pretty far out there, and go in directions that a lot of conservatives right now are uncomfortable with.” On another occasion, he said, that for right-wingers to gain control they must “take aim at the left, specifically the childless left.” He added: “The rejection of the American family is perhaps the most pernicious and the most evil thing the left has done in this country.”

* Vance has long been tied to the Project 2025 gang that compiled a far-reaching right-wing agenda for a second Trump presidency that includes measures to block access to abortion, undo climate change action, and afford Trump authoritarian powers. He wrote the forward to a book recently written by Kevin Roberts, the leader of the Heritage Foundation, who oversaw Project 2025. He has maintained a close relationship with Russ Vought, a self-avowed Christian nationalist who contributed to Project 2025. And he has relationships to other Project 2025 associates. In 2017, he wrote the foreword to a similar report issued by the Heritage Foundation that included essays opposing abortion and in vitro fertilization.

The bottom line: Vance, an acolyte of libertarian billionaire Peter Thiel (whose millions of dollars in campaign contributions helped Vance win his Senate seat), has been part of the extreme right-wing for years, basically calling for a holy war against his perceived enemies. At the debate, he made sure not to appear as such a hardcore crusader and ideologue. And the moderators—Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan—and Walz gave him an assist by not raising any of this. (O’Donnell did press Vance on his previous support for a national abortion ban.)

I understand why Walz didn’t bring this up. Clearly the Harris campaign calculated it was best for him to concentrate on making a good impression on voters who are not familiar with him and on showing that he knows his policy stuff. He succeeded in these tasks. He was not dispatched as an attack dog, probably out of concern that such a stance would undermine his high favorability rating. Thus, he did not focus on Vance’s extremism—though he got a good jab in when Vance reminded people that he’s part of Trump’s election-denying tribe. Walz didn’t even poke at Vance for his now infamous dismissive remark about “childless cat ladies.” (More than a stupid one-liner, that comment was the tip of the iceberg of Vance’s extreme view that non-breeders deserve scorn and are the foes of civilization.)

As for O’Donnell and Brennan, three cheers for the two times they fact-checked Vance. (More on that below.) But as we’ve often seen, journalists within the mainstream media are often reluctant to report fully on the intersections between the Republican Party and far-right extremism. This close alliance is rarely centered in campaign coverage. As I noted in last issue, when the New York Times and the Washington Post reported on Vance’s appearance at the Wallnau shindig, neither went into much depth about Wallnau’s far-out views or his ongoing effort to organize evangelical voters in swing states. The hesitation to dig into the nexus of GOP candidates and extremists is a boon for Republicans and a disservice to the public.

Without the moderators or Walz challenging Vance regarding his extremist ties, rhetoric, and positions, he mainly seemed a normie politician. Perhaps a bit smug or a tad strident at times. But not someone who embraces demonizing liberals and who supports those who celebrate fascistic violence, not someone who calls for purges, not someone who demeans women for not living by his social beliefs, and not someone who approves of the Christian nationalist mission to gain control of American society. That is, not the real JD Vance.

Got anything to say about this item—or anything else? Email me at ourland.corn@gmail.com.

Here’s a final reminder: Our next Zoom get-together of Our Land readers will be this Monday, October 7, 8 p.m. ET. These Zoom gatherings are only open to folks who subscribe to the premium edition of Our Land. (You can do that here.) On the day of the event, premium subscribers will receive a Zoom invitation. Click on that at the appointed hour, and our well-trained Our Land bouncers will let you in. See you then. Not too much to talk about, right?

Anytime there is a major campaign debate, the DCotW judges shudder. That event alone often can produce a long list of nominations. As others have noted, JD Vance lied multiple times during his face-off with Tim Walz this week. About immigrants, climate change, abortion, the Affordable Care Act, gun violence, the economy, and much more. But if the judges had to pick one quote from the night, it would be this gem from Vance: “The rules were that you guys weren’t going to fact-check.”

Vance issued this whiny complaint after CBS News host Margaret Brennan pointed out that the Haitians in Springfield, Ohio—whom Vance had castigated as illegal immigrants and falsely blamed for destroying the city—were legal migrants. Vance was lucky there was precious little other fact-checking. Or he would have looked like a fool.

Philip Klein, editor of the conservative National Review Online, tried to exploit Iran’s missile attack on Israel this week to score a political point. He tweeted: “Reminder that Obama’s disastrous nuclear deal—supported by Biden and Harris—allowed Iran to develop ballistic missiles that are now targeting 10 million Israelis.”

Klein was not being as clever as he thought he was. As Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) replied, “This is not true. Iran had ballistic missiles way before the nuclear deal and the agreement did not ‘allow Iran to develop’ missiles. That's just made up out of thin air.”

Fox host Laura Ingraham tried to do something similar regarding the horrific Hurricane Helene, which clobbered North Carolina and elsewhere, killing at least 200 people. She claimed, “Now if Trump been president over the past 10 days, a lot of people in the federal government would have been working a lot of nights and on the weekend to prepare for this hurricane.”

Ingraham, who has long suffered from Dear Leader-itis, was implying that the Biden-Harris administration were laggards. That’s not true. Biden and the feds had prepped for the storm and have generally received good marks from southeastern governors and officials for their response. Trump, too, tried to politicize this deadly storm and criticized the Biden administration. But as the Associated Press noted,

As president, Trump delayed disaster aid for hurricane-devastated Puerto Rico and diverted money from the Federal Emergency Management Agency in order to finance an effort to return undocumented migrants to Mexico. And Project 2025, backed by Trump supporters, would restructure FEMA to limit aid to states and says that the National Weather Service, which provides crucial data on hurricanes and other storms, “should be broken up and downsized.”

And don’t forget the sharpie and Trump throwing paper towels in Puerto Rico.

The judges tend not to pay too much attention to conspiracy nutter Alex Jones, who has been ordered by a judge to sell off his media company to pay the $1 billion-plus debt he owes to the Sandy Hook families who successfully sued him for pushing disparaging disinformation about that 2012 school shooting in Connecticut. Jones, of course, hasn’t learned his lesson. And a remark he made this week was a good reminder that Jones—who was a special guest at the GOP convention in 2016 and who recently was embraced by Tucker Carlson—remains a purveyor of bullshit. Promoting a conspiracy theory about the most recent assassination attempt on Donald Trump, he said:

The attempted assassin may have had help…But researching this we began to ask ourselves, “Who’s around Trump that can’t be trusted? When Trump made the decision to go play golf, who could’ve leaked the information to a federal agency or group like the CIA that we know the shooter was highly connected to, so he would know to be on the hunt if Trump was indeed playing golf?” That person, of course, is Lindsey Graham.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a Trump sycophant, working with the Deep State to kill Trump? Makes sense, right? Jones knows his audience are suckers. This is pure lunacy. But does anyone believe that Graham would even have the guts to try this?

For our winner, we return to the Vance-Walz debate. As soon as the event was done, New York Times columnist Ross Douthat tweeted: “I would rate that the most successful Republican debate performance of this century, eclipsing Romney in the first debate with Obama in 2012.”

This tweet came minutes after Vance had refused to say whether Trump had lost the 2020 election—a moment that showed he was in the tank with Trump and the entire Big Lie cult. Sure, Vance presented well during the debate, but this exchange demonstrated he was just another reality-denying yes-man for Trump. And Douthat considered that a success.

In a gushy piece he posted during the debate—headlined “Vance’s Dominant Debate Performance Shows Why He’s Trump’s Running Mate”—Douthat maintained, “The first half of the vice-presidential debate has been the strongest illustration in this campaign so far of why it made sense for Donald Trump to pick JD Vance as his running mate. The Ohio senator is delivering one of the best debating performances by a Republican nominee for president or vice president in recent memory and making a case for Trump’s record far more effectively than Trump has ever been capable of doing.”

By that point in the debate, Vance had lied about not having previously supported a national abortion ban, indicated he was totally cool with Trump calling climate change a hoax, and doubled down on his ugly and demagogic attacks on the legal immigrants in Springfield. Yet this was all praiseworthy for Douthat. For his over-the-top and lap-dog-ish celebration of a liar and election denier, Douthat beat out that liar and election denier (and others) and earned this week’s trophy.

The flow of mail is down a bit since we’ve changed our email address to ourland.corn@gmail.com. So if you have something to say, make sure you send it to the correct box (which may change again in the near future). Still, we did receive engaging correspondence from the Our Land gang. 

Charlotte Dunham responded to a recent issue that pointed out the Vance endorsement of that book written by a far-right conspiracy theorist that characterized progressives as “unhumans” who want to destroy civilization:

“Unhuman” is one of the most dangerous words I have heard in this current climate. So obviously meant to create an image of Americans who resist authoritarianism. Americans who believe in diversity and equal opportunities. Americans who believe that the government should not control a woman's body or believe that people of color and sexual minorities deserve the same rights as white, heterosexual Christian males. This label of unhuman is designed as the first step to tyranny. Excuse the hyperbole, but I think it is merited in this case.

Jonathan Cullinane shared this observation:

Trump's claim during the debate with Harris that all he did on January 6 was make a speech hasn't got the attention it deserves, has it? He said, “I had nothing to do with that other than they asked me to make a speech. I showed up for a speech, I said, I think it’s going to be big."

I concur. This is the con game he has played for over three years, dismissing the January 6 riot and, more recently, calling the rioters “patriots” who he has vowed to pardon if he returns to the White House. It is stunning that he has been able to escape accountability for his Big Lie and the assault on the Capitol. What is especially galling is that he paid no price for doing nothing while the attack was underway. It’s undeniable that he sat on his hands for hours that day—hoping the riot would prevent the certification of the election results. That foul misconduct did not lead to an impeachment conviction or end his political career. Only a cult leader could survive that.

Mike Jozwiak replied to the issue reporting on a mysterious payment of $237,500 Melania Trump received for speaking to a nonprofit organization.

I haven’t heard Melania speak in the past, except for a recent clip from an interview with Fox regarding her new book. It does not seem to me from that clip that she is a particularly engaging speaker. So, $237,500 for one event? Maybe that’s the price for not making any waves to disrupt her husband’s campaign. From what I’ve read, Melania seems to have a good handle on marital financial matters. Remember her delayed move to the White House in 2017 and the rumored coincident renegotiation of the prenup?

She is obviously getting something out of her marriage to Trump, and that does seem to include a lot of moolah.

Sandra Brady had a question:

How can Trump become president when he has multiple convictions and fines and more to come? If any other person had just one of these, they would be in prison. What has our nation become, other than corrupt?

I encourage you all to read the recent Jack Smith filing in the election interference criminal case he has mounted against Trump. It is an in-depth account of how Trump tried to overturn the 2020 election and illuminates his deceit, arrogance, narcissism, and contempt for anything other than himself, including his vice president and American democracy. It is a chilling read.

“Why are these sticks here?”
“To keep the deer out of the garden where they’re eating everything, Moxie.”
“Does that work?”
“No.”
“Then why not take them down?”
“That would be admitting defeat.”
“I see. You’re a deer denier.”