How the Internet Broke J.D. Vance's Brain
🌈 Abstract
The article discusses the political views and rhetoric of JD Vance, a Republican Senate candidate in Ohio, and how his ideas fit into a broader trend of "revolutionary conservatism" among the online far-right. It analyzes Vance's comments attacking Vice President Kamala Harris, as well as the influence of thinkers like Peter Thiel and Curtis Yarvin on Vance's worldview. The article argues that Vance and his associates exhibit a "galaxy-brained tendency" to engage in grand theorizing and cultural pessimism rather than practical politics.
🙋 Q&A
[01] Vance's Rhetoric and Ideology
1. What are the key points about Vance's rhetoric and ideology discussed in the article?
- Vance's attack on Kamala Harris as a representative of "childless cat ladies" is described as "ugly and misogynistic"
- Vance tries to sharpen his criticism by claiming the "entire future of the Democrats is controlled by people without children" who don't have a "direct stake" in the country's future
- This reflects a "galaxy-brained tendency" among Vance and his associates to engage in grand theorizing and cultural pessimism rather than practical politics
- Vance's ideas are influenced by thinkers like Peter Thiel and Curtis Yarvin, who promote reactionary and anti-democratic views
2. How does the article situate Vance's ideology within a broader historical context?
- The article draws parallels between Vance's "revolutionary conservatism" and the work of late-19th/early-20th century German critics profiled in Fritz Stern's "The Politics of Cultural Despair"
- It argues Vance and his associates exhibit the same "culture-forward orientation" and "preference for intuitive observation over reasoned judgment" that characterized those earlier critics
- This mode of politics is seen as suspicious of facts and data, and privileging the "abstract, categorical, and high-handed"
3. How does the article assess the potential impact and effectiveness of Vance's political approach?
- The article suggests Vance and his associates may be "too nerdy to be an effective force in mass politics" despite their intellectual pretensions
- It argues their "grand theorizing" is ill-suited to the pragmatic American political tradition, in contrast to the "romantic theorists of German decline" that Stern analyzed
- The article expresses skepticism that Vance can suppress his "natural intellectual inclinations" and make a "straightforward pitch to normies", potentially leading to him being removed from the ticket by Trump.
[02] Broader Trends in Far-Right Ideology
1. How does the article characterize the broader ideological trends exhibited by Vance and his associates?
- The article describes a "ubiquitous affliction" among "hyper-online right-wingers" to engage in grand theorizing and cultural pessimism
- It cites examples like James Lindsay's "anti–critical theory crusade" and Curtis Yarvin's monarchist views as exhibiting similar tendencies
- These thinkers are seen as "despising the discourse of intellectuals, depreciat[ing] reason, and exalt[ing] intuition" - a style of thinking that the article links to the "revolutionary conservatism" that emerged in Weimar Germany
2. How does the article assess the threat and effectiveness of this ideological approach?
- The article suggests Vance and his associates may not be "particularly well equipped for compelling the attention of hundreds of millions of their fellow citizens"
- It draws on John Ganz's "jock/creep theory of fascism" to argue that figures like Vance and his online associates are more akin to "high-school creeps" than serious political actors
- However, the article acknowledges the threat is still "serious" - while they may not be able to make a "straightforward pitch to normies", they could still "bring knives to school"
- The article expresses skepticism that Vance's "natural intellectual inclinations" can be suppressed, potentially leading to his removal from the ticket by Trump.