So, What Would a Vance Administration Be Like?

[Fantine]

Without the looming threat of Trump giving him the "Pence treatment" and sending the MAGA-hounds after him, I think he'd basically be a George W Bush style republican.

Which means, he certainly still wouldn't be popular among Democrats, but would represent a move back toward "normalcy" in the eyes of a lot of folks.


But the question is, would he be able to win without the "Trumpy stuff"?

I think the verdict is out on that one... That would largely depend on who his opponent was.

If the Democrats run an AOC, then a "conventional republican" wins.

If the Democrats run a Gavin Newsom, then a republicans would likely have to embrace some "Trumpy stuff" to beat him.

You think people like "the Trumpy stuff?" Starving refugees in Palestine? Sending refugees here with temporary protected to status to Sudanese gulags because their home countries are still dangerous? Alligator Alcatraz? 15 million losing healthcare?
American children going to bed hungry? Paving paradise (Rose Garden in WH) and putting up a parking lot? Handmaids' Tale Christmas trees in WH? "Helping" Zelensky and Ukraine only if they give him mineral rights worth far more than what he is willing to give back? Withholding FEMA funds for months and then only giving to individual homeowners? Withholding money (already allocated) from homeless shelters, schools, and afterschool care programs--threatening closures and reduced services? Mass layoffs of federal employees?

I haven't even mentioned all the first amendment repression--simply because he has thin-skinned behavior?

If this is the "Trumpy stuff" that some Republicans prefer, they are no better than he is. And that is about the lowest bar I can imagine setting.

And there is no way to put a "kinder face" on "100% evil."

 

[BCP1928]

You think people like "the Trumpy stuff?" Starving refugees in Palestine? Sending refugees here with temporary protected to status to Sudanese gulags because their home countries are still dangerous? Alligator Alcatraz? 15 million losing healthcare?
American children going to bed hungry? Paving paradise (Rose Garden in WH) and putting up a parking lot? Handmaids' Tale Christmas trees in WH? "Helping" Zelensky and Ukraine only if they give him mineral rights worth far more than what he is willing to give back? Withholding FEMA funds for months and then only giving to individual homeowners? Withholding money (already allocated) from homeless shelters, schools, and afterschool care programs--threatening closures and reduced services? Mass layoffs of federal employees?

I haven't even mentioned all the first amendment repression--simply because he has thin-skinned behavior?

If this is the "Trumpy stuff" that some Republicans prefer, they are no better than he is. And that is about the lowest bar I can imagine setting.

And there is no way to put a "kinder face" on "100% evil."

I was thinking particularly about "deportation theater." Suppose he were to turn ICE loose on working illegals aliens in a serious way, not because they were evil invaders violating the purity of our cultural institutions but because they were being exploited, and didn't just cuff them and haul them away, but treated them as real human beings while handing out serious punishment to the corporations and labor contractors who take advantage of them. That would be more in line with Catholic thinking and would be more acceptable than the present approach even with Democrats.

 

[Fantine]

I was thinking particularly about "deportation theater." Suppose he were to turn ICE loose on working illegals aliens in a serious way, not because they were evil invaders violating the purity of our cultural institutions but because they were being exploited, and didn't just cuff them and haul them away, but treated them as real human beings while handing out serious punishment to the corporations and labor contractors who take advantage of them. That would be more in line with Catholic thinking and would be more acceptable than the present approach even with Democrats.

But is that "Trumpy stuff?"

Dream on. Vance is a very "corporate Republican." Punishing corporations and labor contractors? "They don't vote," you may say--but they manipulate the vote by throwing huge sums of money into his campaigns.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You think people like "the Trumpy stuff?"

No, I generally don't think it's their first choice...

However, I do think that a large amount of conservatives see the "Trumpy stuff" as bulwark and counterpunch to what they see as the excesses of the left.

So it largely becomes a "match the opponent's energy" environment.

Hence the reason Trump lost in 2020, but won in 2024.

In 2020, all indicators signaled that Biden would govern moderately -- and people chose that over the "Trumpy stuff"

By 2024, Democrats had clearly signaled that they were pushing to the left on some of the social issues, and a cohort of people went right back to Trump.

 

[BCP1928]

But is that "Trumpy stuff?"

No, the "Trumpy stuff" is that the illegal alien workers are a problem just because they are here to destroy our culture and should be removed with cruelty before they victimize Americans any further, the victims including big employers and labor contractors who have been deceived by their nefarious scheming.

Dream on. Vance is a very "corporate Republican." Punishing corporations and labor contractors? "They don't vote," you may say--but they manipulate the vote by throwing huge sums of money into his campaigns.

Of course he is, and the problem he faces is to carry out their orders without generating too much dissatisfaction in the working class. The Trump administration has convinced itself that nothing need be done to satisfy us but showing us the dead body of the Woke Monster. I hope that Vance understands that it won't be enough. Not everyone who voted for Trump this last time is that stupid,

 

[BCP1928]

No, I generally don't think it's their first choice...

However, I do think that a large amount of conservatives see the "Trumpy stuff" as bulwark and counterpunch to what they see as the excesses of the left.

So it largely becomes a "match the opponent's energy" environment.

Hence the reason Trump lost in 2020, but won in 2024.

In 2020, all indicators signaled that Biden would govern moderately -- and people chose that over the "Trumpy stuff"

By 2024, Democrats had clearly signaled that they were pushing to the left on some of the social issues, and a cohort of people went right back to Trump.

Right. It's time for the Woke Monster to die, and it's up to the Democrats to fling the plague-ridden corpse over the conservative battlements with a catapult.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Right. It's time for the Woke Monster to die, and it's up to the Democrats to fling the plague-ridden corpse over the conservative battlements with a catapult.

I don't know that the initiatives themselves have to die (although some of them would probably be better off being reevaluated at some point)...

But they do need to be put within the context of a more reasonable timeline expectation for the size and scope of the changes being demanded.


Deep end of the pool analogy:

What yields better results in a swimming class?
Starting a kid off in the shallow end where they feel like they can still get their footing, and letting them feel like they have some say in the pace of moving to the deep end? (with maybe some constructive encouragement and light nudging)

Or, a bold declaration of "if you don't get over to the deep end in 5 minutes, I'm going to pick you up against your will and toss you in"?


Social activism used to fall inline with the former, over the past decade, the advocates have opted for the latter approach.


Not to mention, changes that comes about more gradually and organically (even though it doesn't move as fast as some would like) often is more durable and legit than changes that are foisted on people by force.

 

[BCP1928]

I don't know that the initiatives themselves have to die (although some of them would probably be better off being reevaluated at some point)...

But they do need to be put within the context of a more reasonable timeline expectation for the size and scope of the changes being demanded.


Deep end of the pool analogy:

What yields better results in a swimming class?
Starting a kid off in the shallow end where they feel like they can still get their footing, and letting them feel like they have some say in the pace of moving to the deep end? (with maybe some constructive encouragement and light nudging)

Or, a bold declaration of "if you don't get over to the deep end in 5 minutes, I'm going to pick you up against your will and toss you in"?


Social activism used to fall inline with the former, over the past decade, the advocates have opted for the latter approach.


Not to mention, changes that comes about more gradually and organically (even though it doesn't move as fast as some would like) often is more durable and legit than changes that are foisted on people by force.

They got away with gay marriage, but trans was a bridge too far. It didn't help that they were seen to be actively disavowing the labor wing of the party in favor of big corporate campaign contributions. Even the big labor unions, as degenerate as they are, have started to get tired of it.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

They got away with gay marriage, but trans was a bridge too far. It didn't help that they were seen to be actively disavowing the labor wing of the party in favor of big corporate campaign contributions. Even the big labor unions, as degenerate as they are, have started to get tired of it.

That goes back to what I mentioned before, gay rights was a much smaller "ask" (in terms of changing social norms) with far fewer implications, and it was a much more gradual process.

It was something like 4 decades worth of outreach and advocacy on the gay marriage front. But the end result is a society where 75% are supportive of it (or don't care much one way or the other)

If they'd followed the blueprint that the trans activists of the past 5 years have used, they'd probably still be fighting for the right to marry and more people would still be digging their heels in because the atmosphere would have more of a "combative" feel.


Goes back to another aspect I've delved into before, which is that of "Positive and negative rights", and this applies more broadly to modern progressive activism across a variety of topics

Negative and positive rights - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The gay community did a much better job of making their case within the context of negative rights (Rights that oblige inaction, and don't demand anything of anyone else) -- For example: "Hey, us getting married doesn't impact you at all, and doesn't negate your own ability to get married, and you don't have to hang out with us or like us, and we're not trying to get you bend a knee and publicly claim support for what we're doing if you don't want to"

As where modern forms of activism takes the form of positive rights ("Here's the list of things you have to do & say, and the even longer list of things you're not allowed to do & say")

The latter approach almost always galvanizes the opposition.

 

[DaisyDay]

Vance would probably continue with Hegseth's purge of the military of women, especially among the leadership.

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5421346-pentagon-reassigns-women-leadership/

Panetta, who in 2013 announced that all combat roles would soon be open to women — a shift that eventually came in 2015 — told The Hill that the Trump administration’s removal of female leaders from the ranks, often without explanation, will have impacts on morale for female service members.

“Just to remove commanders from their positions without cause sends a clear signal that this is not about merit, it’s not about performance, it’s about the fact that they’re women. It’s the only conclusion you can come to,” he said.

...All women have now been purged from the military’s top jobs, with no female four-star officers on active duty and none in pending appointments for four- or three-star roles.
​