Why did President-elect Donald Trump choose JD Vance as his Vice President-elect? The Liberty spoke with Victor Davis Hanson, a prominent figure in the conservative circle.

Interviewer: Hanako Cho

Victor Davis Hanson

Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow in military history at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and a Professor Emeritus of classics at California State University, Fresno. He is the author of more than two dozen books, ranging in topics from ancient Greece to modern America, recently “The Dying Citizen”. He lives on a farm in Selma, California.

Q: President-elect Donald Trump chose JD Vance as his running mate immediately after the failed assassination attempt. It is often said that he was chosen because he would be able to win the youth vote and the Rust Belt vote, but we think he was also chosen because he stands most appropriately in agreement with Trump’s vision. In our opinion, it resembles how the Founding Fathers carried on George Washington’s will after the founding of America. Dr. Hanson, how do you view the selection of Vance?

Victor Davis Hanson: His selection was criticized of course by the Left and some on the Right, the latter arguing [that] his native Ohio was already in the Trump column and as a white male he did not “diversify” the ticket.

But Trump knew well that as a veteran, Ivy-League trained and from the poorest region in America, he was versatile, brilliant and would devour the hostile press. And he did just that, day after day on the campaign, as well as humiliating, albeit politely, Tim Walz in the vice presidential debate.

Vance is the best articulator and explicator of the Make America Great Again (MAGA) agenda, as well as its best representative of middle-class empathies.

It’s Evident: Religion Empowers Vance

Q: Trump is a Methodist. Mr. Vance became an atheist to belong to the elite, but later became a Catholic. What do you think the significance of this means?

Hanson: Both Trump and Vance, after bouts of agnosticism and atheism, came willingly to Christian belief, albeit in different manifestations and devoutness.

Religion obviously empowered both as well: Vance was derided upon selection and even some conservatives thought he should be removed. That unfair criticism mounted but had zero effect on him. [As for Trump,] after five lawfare civil and criminal suits, two assassination attempts, two impeachments and billions of dollars in negative media publicity, Trump never gave up but got stronger.

Apparently, both believed in divine guidance and transcendence and such piety, and the idea of a transcendent Christian soul served them well.

‘Liberalism’ Brings Down America

Q: In the U.S. left-wing circle, it appears that “freedom” is considered the ability to do whatever you like. This idea is spreading throughout the world, but would you argue that this left-wing sense of liberalism is gradually coming to an end?

Hanson: Yes, our Jacobian cultural revolution‚ more illiberal than libertarian and so injurious to both ourselves and our friends and allies abroad, proved purely nihilistic. It was destroying our borders, our laws, our traditions, our economy and our unity.

Trump is a counter-revolutionist. He won because he assured the nation that it was not crazy [to reject left-wing liberalism], but rather, that the Obama-Biden-leftwing radical woke people certainly were unhinged and if they weren’t stopped, they would ruin the country.

The people listened and gave conservatives the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives, along with the continuance of a sane Supreme Court. It was a devastating referendum on woke nihilism—and the entire Obama “hopey-changey stalist” legacy.

Q: Mr. Vance’s Catholic faith places a greater emphasis on community. He himself describes his philosophy as post-liberalism. This seems to form the basis of his economic and trade policies, what do you think of his philosophy and its ramification for his policies?

Hanson: It is difficult to translate Catholic ecumenicalism and communitarianism into actual policy.

The key issue is tariffs and Vance’s concern for the low-wage working and displaced classes.

Despite sometimes sloppy language, I think the second-term Trump agenda will not be blanket tariffs, but reciprocity in trade: the U.S. will say [that] after 80 postwar years and $36 trillion in debt, it cannot continue to subsidize asymmetrical trade and will simply pattern its tariffs after those who place tariffs on U.S. goods.

Or as Vance would say, “Do onto others as they would do unto you.”

In theory, it is a call for fair and free trade.

One upside is there will be a massive effort to lower world energy prices by unleashing U.S. gas and oil production as well as strategic minerals.

When Trump talks of tariffs, the subtext is China, which in so many insidious ways, from fentanyl exports to Mexico to dumping products in the U.S. to capture market share, to bullying U.S. friends and allies and intimidating the anemic Biden administration, has sought to destroy the U.S. and its system of Western alliances.

JD Vance Calls for Morality Amid Free Market Capitalism

Q: Mr. Vance describes himself as not being a libertarian, because he is concerned — though he respects free choice very much — that if people are left to make their own choices, society will sometimes be harmed by morally wrong choices. I think that the idea of achieving virtuous freedom is wonderful. How do his ideas unfold in the economic and political realm? Does his view yield antitrust law to tech companies such as Google?

Hanson: Vance is deliberately targeting doctrinaire laissez-faire Republicanism that called for privatization of Social Security, unrestricted offshoring and outsourcing, and neglect of the eroding rust belt interior of the U.S.

He knows he is walking a fine line, given free market capitalism is why the U.S. is so wealthy and outperforms most of the world in its standard of living and GDP.
But he also knows that without a moral sense, when such resulting exorbitant wealth is unevenly distributed then a certain callousness develops along the lines of “let them eat cake,” which explains why the Bush-McCain-Romney Republican Party lost the white working class and did not appeal to minorities, and was doomed to the fate of a permanent minority party.

So he is trying to say, “We are capitalists but capitalists who just want a level playing field and encourage the successful to think of the less successful and use their wisdom and talent to enrich everyone”—and to do that to avoid public backlash and ward off the tyranny of ever greater regulation.

Q: Mr. Vance is also said to have a close relationship with Peter Thiel, and they share a sense of crisis that misguided liberal ideology. Sclerotic government bureaucracy and feckless elites have perverted the trajectory of technological progress, turning technology into a tool of national and civilizational destruction rather than renewal. What are your thoughts on these two? Do you think their relationship has a great significance on the future of the tech industry?

Hanson: This is a positive development. The amazing enlistment of Thiel, Musk, Sacks, Andreessen, Horowitz, Ackman, etc. and a host of Silicon Valley and Wall Street zillionaires to the side of Trump gives not only credibility to his agendas but enormous confidence and talent as well.

Trump is warring against envy and spite and believes we can instead emulate the energy and genius of those who have changed the world, as if they are our new Edisons, Bells and Wright Brothers.

Even former Trump haters like Bezos and Zuckerberg wish to make peace with Trump and understand that Trump, for all the bad media, is not vindictive but wants the U.S. and the Westernized system to reassume their global prestige and power, and cannot do that by fighting and trying to tear down the most powerful and often talented people in the world, many of whom like Thiel, Musk, Ramaswammy, etc., are either immigrants or children of immigrants who came to the U.S. on the theory their talents could only be manifested here.

Vance’s Vision Will Recreate Deterrence, Protect Interests of the Western World and U.S. Allies

Q: Regarding foreign policy, Mr. Vance says that it should reflect the moral and ethical intuition of American Christians. He also shares the same views as Mr. Trump on the China policy to value the middle class. What should we think about the future that this implies?

Hanson: I think it is hopeful. The Vance vision translates into a Jacksonian creed of “Don’t tread on me” “No better friend, no worse enemy”—one that will avoid optional wars especially in the Middle East, but recreate deterrence. The vision will pick and choose very carefully when and how to display overwhelming U.S. power, most of which will be to protect and enhance the interests of the Western world and U.S. allies.

I think in your part of the world, Trump-Vance means something along the lines of:

“Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia and the Philippines all know what is best for themselves without our directives. But as long as they get along with each other and us, and share our Western visions, then we are obligated, if called upon, to step in and protect and partner with them, when bullies such as China, Russia, Iran or North Korea seek to intimidate or threaten them.”

Q: Mr. Vance sees the current state of the U.S. as being similar to the decline of the Roman Empire with respect to the decline of morality. If Mr. Vance were to succeed Trump, do you think this will enable the U.S. to lay a solid foundation for prosperity?

Hanson: I think in general, yes. There is an element of Christian morality and ethos that is uneasy with free market capitalism, so the balance is critical: to use the market for its efficiency and greater wisdom but to appeal to the hearts and minds of the successful capitalists to avoid excess and decadence and in their own private wisdom seek to help the helpless and unite the country.

Vance brings a much needed, grassroots, up-from-poverty, and affection for the lower middle classes that are vital for Trump’s MAGA agendas and the support of the working classes and minorities.