So Luke isn’t excited about meme coins? Bailing out Argentina? Bombing Iran? Paying for genocide? Blowing up random boats in the Caribbean? Luke has to like the measles, right? I’m sure canceling cancer research had to be high on Luke’s list when he voted for Trump. Luke didn’t really think Trump was going to help ordinary Americans did he? Him and the author do like the CHIPS Act, oh but that was Biden. I’m confused here.
Respectfully, you're kind of making the article's point for it. Most working class folks are smarter than you think and have plenty of disagreements about what Trump is doing - but the reality is that even with these mistakes the D brand is still toxic. So people are trying to pick the lesser evil while understanding that there's no guarantee they're gonna get what they want. I think it's very telling that polls show a lot of swing voters have regrets about voting for Trump, but also no desire for Kamala to have won.
Oren has been very consistent is defending some of what Trump is doing and voicing disappointment with other things. But also, he has a good point that a pro-working class right is at least being discussed now, and that's the first step towards more substantive change.
Who cares about the rule of law right? I’m the furthest thing from a Kamala supporter but to act as if Trump isn’t the most irresponsible choice ever, is a joke.
Love this article - Skyler is so right that "Trump" (or any politician) will always waffle away from the tough decisions and societal revisions that most of America wants and needs. Subscribing to Skyler Adleta now....
What an amazing piece of journalism. Want to understand Trump voters and working class concerns... go talk to some working class Trump swing voters. This ought to be in the NYT, but they're too busy screaming that Trump's voters are all racist Nazis.
I am not working class: retired IT professional with a 4 yr degree who now teaches as a private school. But I attend a blue-collar church, voted Trump, and live in the country, so I am a class traitor.
The tension in the new conservativism is over the "government is the problem" (Reagan) wing vs the "govt can solve problems" (Buchanan) wing. The former is in decline but it still echoes through the room. I suspect that's why we see a lot of "macro" and too little "micro". Many of Trump's policies are Buchananite, but at 80+, his instincts are those of the Reagan wing. He's instinctually allergic to using govt in hard, specific ways for class benefit. He also has the attention span of a squirrel, which, while an improvement over term 1's attention span of a gnat, still doesn't favor long term, strategic planning.
Conservatism's younger elites are all Buchananite though, and they are strategic. Trump has done his job as a disruptor; others (like Vance) will rebuild. So as much as Luke may not be happy with results so far, to be blunt, as long as the Democrats are completely bonkers (you're living in fascism, girls can have dicks, diversity is our strength, borders are racist, illiterate illegal immigrants are beneficial) people like Luke aren't going anywhere else politically.
I understand your zeal to wave away Don's corruption, incoherence, and incompetence. Since any thinking person must acknowledge what they regularly observe, defending him isn't an option, although JD slavishly tries. But banking on JD to be a warrior for workin stiffs? I gotta chuckle on that one. Apparently you're a disciple of his second version of Don's "new" right, not his first...remember the first version is where he spoke far more negatively about Don than the NYT has (America's Hitler, cultural heroin, etc). I think he was honest the first time, but I respect your choice to buy version two.
Perhaps you're right, and JD will re-reinvent himself and eschew his newfound culture warrior identity. After all, prattling on about "girls with dicks", pet eating, etc, doesn't put much food on the table of a laid off factory worker in Toledo. It merely scratches a culture warriors mean-spirited itches, and more importantly, wins elections. To borrow a phrase, it's "cultural heroin".
So, as you predict, maybe JD will soon preside over an economic renaissance engineered and orchestrated by the federal government:). Maybe. I can see him moving the chess pieces on the board now, with his billionaire boss Peter Thiel advising him on how to best help the workin stiffs. Maybe they can emulate the other successful centrally planned economies of history like the ones in, um, well, uh, gosh, I can't think of any right now, can you?
People change, Karl. Life experience alters them, and JD's livf experience changed enormously from 2015 to 2024. JD is also very young, and his ability to alter his views, I think speaks highly of his character. Too many people (esp politicians) are unwilling to re-examine their own beliefs.
It's also important to realize that the Left's cultural positions (like "girls can have dicks") not only don't put food on the table of that laid off factory worker, but are utterly nonsensical to everyone around the table too. (This is born out many polls showing such policies are most popular with white, college-ed women and decline sharply across all other race, sex, and class demos.) So while I do want the GOP to show it's willing to really work to help its recently adopted, blue-collar constituency, my larger point is that the current Democratic Party isn't an even less conducive home for that constituency.
It'd be great if we could keep the trans bigotry out of this discussion. How does hating trans people help blue collar workers either? These political hatreds distract us from solving complicated economic questions.....
I don't mean to be flippant, but is it your position that stating "girls can't have dicks" (an obvious biological fact) is "trans bigotry" and "hating trans people"?
If so, you are a core Democrat voter. And encourage you the 20% of the country that agrees with you to lobby hard for the Democratic Party to stay all-in on these issues. I'll take the 80% of the country that believes in biology and reality and thinks boys have no place on the podiums of girls sports or in HS cheerleaders' locker rooms.
One of the more revealing aspects of maga's "new" right agenda is the fixation with, and attacks on, the trans community. On a superficial level, it reveals a misunderstanding of the word "new". Picking on disadvantaged elements of society merely to attain political power ain't exactly new, it's about as old as it gets. Then again, other signature issues of the "new" right-tariffs, isolationism, deficit spending, subsidization of the wealthy, etc are likewise not exactly new. What IS new is jettisoning past support of notions like freedom from government intrusion into the most personal aspects of our lives.
On a deeper level, it reveals much about those willing to make such attacks. It takes a particular type of person to countenance attacks on kids that face such unique challenges. Challenges that lead to high rates of suicide, depression, substance abuse and other ailments. But, maybe it really IS newfound concern over women's sports that motivates them. Maybe. Ya know, making sure the faceless kid a few thousand miles away doesn't get a third place ribbon in the high school cross country meet is pretty doggone important to the promised manufacturing renaissance...
Finding one's way in the world is difficult for any kid, even the kids that have everything in their favor. Civil adults should endeavor to help kids, all kids. What does it say about those who choose to make it even harder for those already facing the greatest of struggles? And for what? JD's political career? Here's hoping JD adopts yet another political identity, his original one seemed more humane. And let's all endeavor to remember the admonitions of that certain religious guy who spoke of "the least among us".
It "takes a special kind of person" to teach 3rd graders that boys can be girls.
It "takes a special kind of person" to encourage mentally ill teenagers to slice off or chemically whither their body parts.
It "takes a special kind of person" to celebrate the above as liberation.
I agree that a civilized society treats its weakest members with compassion and respect. But there's nothing compassionate or respectful in these actions.
However I'm not a Millian who thinks "freedom from government intrusion" is the highest good for a society. I'm a Burkean who thinks "helping man achieve virtue" is. That difference in philosophy likely explains our differences in political views.
Thanks for this comment! I share your views that trans girls/women should not compete in girls'/women's sports. That is 20% (if that) of the trans issue, the rest being none of my business and once again having nothing to do with improving the lives and paychecks of blue-collar workers and their forgotten communities. Thank you again!
It may not put food on the table, but that's a short term problem. He'll find a job. He knows that. It may suck. It may be WalMart. But he knows he's got to do it. And he will.
His daughter has told him about the blue-haired boy that's trying to use the girls' locker room at her school -- but that's short term, not long term, and while it will piss him off, he won't likely vote on it. You're right about that.
But long term, he wants more for his 2 kids, maybe even college. And he sees a Democratic Party that: imported millions of illegals that compete for the jobs his teenagers are applying for; awards college slots based on race (DEI); and wants his daughter to lose sports scholarships to boys.
So while it is "the economy, stupid" (I think that was Carville), when pursued as vigorously as the Democratic Party has, even so-called "culture war" issues end up having very personal economic consequences.
To be clear, I'm not saying the Republican Party has very many good answers to this dude's problems (short or long term). Only that the Dems answers are (for now) not only worse but also bat-shit crazy, so Luke will likely stick with the GOP.
So JD morphing into a culture warrior, and away from a period when he told the truth, is because he "changed", from "life experience". Becoming a culture warrior is thus a form of growth and "speaks well of his character"? After he matured he embraced Don, and moved on to pet eating, the election lies, the incessant trans ads during the campaign, etc. And this is to be read as a harbinger of his future concern over the challenges of the working class. An interesting theory, I guess it's possible.
But, actual concern over the working class might be better addressed by seeking to forge the political consensus necessary to enact meaningful and lasting change? By articulating and publicly defending an actual economic agenda? Addressing the impacts of our transformation to an information/global economy demands serious, focused, long term, bipartisan effort, not the bile we too often hear.
I agree the D's are way too identity focused, it turns me off. It turns a lot of people off and is a major reason they lost last year. But the whataboutism rationalization is thin gruel. JD made his own choices, D's didn't force him to self-geld. His reputation is now forever lashed to Don. Let's hope his ending with Don is better than Mike Pence's. Which reminds me, JD has publicly said he would not have had Mike Pence's character, and he would not have supported certification of the 2020 election. Which version of the rule of law is more aligned with the long term success of the US economy, JD's or Pence's? Or is rule of law irrelevant for an economy?
Meanwhile make sure you watch Don's presser with RFK and Dr Oz, and for good measure throw in the UN speech. They're astounding, and horrifying. Then imagine that aging, angry, addled brain at 82, with Don's finger still on the button.
I feel for you Karl. You seem to be politically homeless and I know from experience how difficult that is. You look around and can't find anyone articulating positions that you think are utterly obvious.
Try to tone down the emotion and look at actual policy. The Democratic Party spent 4 years all in on "boys in girl's locker rooms", "race is the most important thing about a person", "globalization is always good", and "borders are racist". You may insist they didn't actually SAY those things, but in terms of policy, that was how they governed. They did lots of other stuff, but those were the major, all-4-years, issues for the Democrats.
Compare that to Trump. You don't have to like the man. I wouldn't trust him for 5 minutes with my daughter. But again, look at policy. Some of that policy is still being worked out, but some is very clear: "colorblindness is the goal", "American citizens come before other people", "borders matter", "laws should be enforced not ignored", "men and women are different".
You may decide you think the Democrats have a better set of policies. And if so, you should vote for them. But vote based on the actual policies each group has pursued when they've governed. Emotion (particularly anger) is a very poor voting guide. As Aristotle said, only a people who have mastered individual self-government (controlling their passions) can ever be fit for collective self-government (democracy).
Oh my I'm sorry this country boy cornfused you:). This isn't about policy, that's the least of my worries. Policy ebbs and flows and can be fixed, if we can preserve a system that allows us to fix it. I'm happy on either side of the 50 yard line, I just hope to end up between the 40's. Politics for me is a mechanism to achieve consensus amongst a hugely diverse country and move forward, it's not identity like it seems to be for so many today.
At the same time, I don't think this is a normal period. I think Don has proven to us he's dangerous. I think policy is used as a form of whataboutism by Don apologists on the right. It's: well yeah there was that insurrection and the election lies, the pardons, the repeated crazy uncle moments, the blatant racism, the massive corruption, the attacks on the judiciary/corporations/law firms/universities, the hollowing out of the civil service, the flouting of science, the RFK disaster, the president publicly ordering his AG to indict his political opponents, but hey, look at the policy! Those marginal tax rates! The regulatory relief! The groovin judges!
Hopefully you're right and this is all normal, just another DC partisan squabble. But, our foremost experts on authoritarianism tell us otherwise. That's assuming expertise still matters?
I guess I'd ask if you've closely read the public statements of Don's first term cabinet, after all, he appointed them. The decorated generals. The lifelong public servants with sterling reputations. The idealistic young women serving in the White House who testified against him. The military leadership's accounts of how they "handled" him on issues related to our nuclear arsenal because of their fears. I have.
Term two is so much worse, those human guardrails are gone, replaced by incompetent loyalists in the power ministries. I fervently hope you're right, and I'm deranged. Just another TDS loon.
If you can't see that JD Vance is a shape-shifting opportunist, then working class people like the one interviewed in this article are going to be even more disappointed with republicans than they are now.
Can you identify 3-4 things that tell you JD is a "shapeshifting opportunist" and not someone who sincerely changed his views?
I'm as cynical on politicians as any American. Trump Derangement Syndrome I understand. I don't share it, but I get the point of view. But I find the Vance-hatred pretty weird.
Sure. In fact, its not his political 180 on Donald Trump that proves he's an opportunist. That's a consequence, not the cause. I could fill pages listing examples of his hypocrisy but it can be summarized in a few sentences. His book, Hillbilly Elegy, which I read when it first came out, was fundamentally a tale of hope. As broken as many things are in America - dysfunctional family structure, economic strife, elite institutions acting like gatekeepers to success and prosperity - a kid like him was still able to exceed all expectations associated with his humble upbringing.
But hope is a tough sell. There's not a lot of buyers for hope. Vance realized, sometime after writing his book, that the market for grievance is much, much bigger - and, this is key - more more profitable and salient, particularly to the populist right. Hope doesn't sell, but telling people who to blame for their problems does. And Vance excels at this.
I asked for specific examples though. I agree, Vance's tone has shifted from Elegy. But look at what's happened to him since then. Elegy was written as a young, starry-eyed, ruling class baby wanting to use his Yale Law degree to solve problems. He's now got 10 years watching the ruling class up close; how could he not be far more cynical about them now? 10 years ago, he was hoping to use them to improve the world. Now he recognizes (as so many blue collar people do) that the ruling class only wants the world improved for themselves. His changed view of Trump (someone who runs on disrupting the ruling class status quo) reflects a larger changed view of his own new class?
There are millions of people in America who went through the same transition. Trump scraped by in 2016. But several million of those Hillary voters, watching the Democrats lose their mind from 2020-2024, decided Trump was the better choice in 2024. Is it really so hard to believe Vance did the same?
You're claiming Vance is hypocritical or opportunistic for this change. Maybe you're right. But you present no evidence of it. Or rather, the evidence you do present is equally compatible with Vance's shift being genuine.
Luke sounds representative of a demographic that swung towards Don in 2024. I come from a fellow flyover state and have watched the trends that challenge Luke and his family unfold over many years. It pains me to see him exploited by the founder and intellectual lodestar of the "new" right-Don.
Luke is unfortunately learning an important life lesson. History is replete with demagogues who appear in times of significant economic and social transformation. They exploit the legitimate angst felt by citizens during those times. They hold up scapegoats (brown people, the opposing party, immigrants). They dehumanize the scapegoats (they eat pets, they poison our blood, they're rapists and criminals, etc) to channel energy against the "others" while deflecting blame from themselves. They promise simplistic solutions (lower prices on day one, a manufacturing renaissance, an easy end to wars) that have no realistic chance of happening. Meanwhile, the real project is consolidation of power and the personal enrichment of the dear leader (crypto corruption, 747's, golf resorts in Vietnam). This is made worse by elites who vouch for the leader while making their own compromises with him that financially benefit themselves (biz "leaders", think tanks, fellow party members).
Who could blame Luke for being frustrated. The "new" right's crowning legislative achievement-the BBB, screws people like him while transferring wealth to plutocrats. He's watching Don pocket billions through his crypto corruption. He sees Don fixated not on him, but on retribution for his enemies. He sees administration officials let off the hook after being recorded by the FBI taking paper bags of cash to defraud the government.
The trends impacting Luke are systemic and not easily fixed, especially in the short term. He's been told to expect a manufacturing renaissance from tariffs, but manufacturing trends will continue as they have for decades-we'll continue to produce record output while employing fewer and fewer people, trends that will likely accelerate.
The first thing Luke needs is to be told the truth instead of being lied to. This week's example of Don's willingness to lie to people like Luke was his horrific press conference with RFK Jr and Dr Oz. Take the time to watch our president in action, everyone needs to see not just his foolish lies, but his mental decline. His incoherent babble. There are times he makes Joepa appear lucid, not an easy achievement.
Luke, here's a tip. Watch what people do, not what they say. And keep the pressure on your buds at AC, they're enabling Don and his exploitation.
Two, the shift of blue-collar workers to the GOP (while college-educated workers migrate to the DNC) is a process that's been ongoing for decades. Trump is the symptom, not the cause, of that migration, which predates him.
In fact, Trump is the inflection point, representing the arrival of the newcomers and the subsequent expulsion of the Republican old guard (Bill Kristol, Lynn Cheney, etc.). Trump is not the product of a civil war within the Republican Party, but rather an invasion.
Two comments. First some of the funding for FISC comes from an increase in the tax rate for the top four tiers. I cannot see Republicans voting for that. Second CHIPS act is sited for a successful creation of manufacturing facility. Too bad the Trump administration is doing away with so much of it that creates working class jobs in solar and wind energy. Meanwhile China surges ahead. Maybe Luke or his children will one day have fun jobs mining coal.
"I feel like being working class in our country means that you top out at a small two—or, if you’re lucky—three-bedroom ranch."
I am sorry does he expect to afford a castle as a blue collar worker? Anything else? How about a star ship to go along with the fries? And if a blue collar worker can afford a castle where should the managers live? On the Moon? Since when the "American Dream" transform into every construction worker thinking they should be rolling like a Rothschild?
This contempt for working class ambition is exactly the issue. And why does the manager have to live ON THE MOON if the worker has a castle? Your perceptions have been twisted by the wealth gaps that have risen only in recent decades, and are not at all "conservative" in a classic sense. Luke would probably be quite happy if his salary was 1/20th of the CEO's, which would be the 1965 ratio, not 1/350th, which it is today. He puts in 10 hours a day doing hard and valuable work, and wants dignity in return, which means a lifestyle that is on the same planet, conceptually, as management.
Do you know that your friend Trump, in order to finance the tax cuts for himself and his billionaire friends, has included in the Big Beautiful Bill a huge tax increase for incomes under 30,000 dollars?
I am neither working class or even working (retired) and I too am losing patience. My concerns are more around foreign policy but I agree with everything in this article and more. Trump needs to stop jawboning the Fed to lower rates. Inflation which affects the working class much more than the laptop class is not beaten yet and the softening of the labor market consists of more Americans having jobs being offset by a larger number of immigrants departing. Trump needs to take the W here. Yeah, interest rates make housing difficult but I can remember having a 17% mortgage. Better to address the housing market by the other policies suggested in the article and especially by whacking the hedge funds which are causing a lot of the run up in prices. They are also affecting medical costs and even veterinarians and creating medical deserts where rural working class families live. Probably this is best addressed with tax policies and not by giving hedge funds access to the 401k market which has been proposed. It is reasonable to assume that they will follow their normal pump and dump practice. Another overlooked problem is the CAFE standards which are designed to force Americans to buy cars they don't want by prohibiting the manufacture of cars and trucks they do want. The EV nonsense has exacerbated this but now that bubble seems to have popped and I am not sure what happens next. Make IC cars even smaller? The tiny cars required by CAFE make it impossible to fit more than two car seats for children or haul around your children's soccer team. If you want to do that, you have to pay inflated prices for larger vehicles. This, after child care, is probably the 2nd largest financial disincentive to having children.
This is what the Trump administration really needs to do. The democrats did this although the delivery is not consistent enough. The chips and technology act passed in the Biden administration is responsible for the investment in the intel plant so the Trump administration needs to complete it expeditiously ! And not promise quick results when the situation clearly is going to take longer 😎
Both Luke and Skyler add a lot to this matter. It is wonderful they have this forum to express their insights. But at the end of the day, without some form of worker organization, working families are going to be left out.
I've seen the unions co-opted for so many decades as funding vehicles for the Dems that I am wary of this. Alter the Taft-Hartley rules to make unions confine themselves to issues that directly involve labor relations. Perhaps eliminate their ability to make political contributions unless 75% of their members vote to endorse the candidate. Ban public-sector unions completely. Policy changes like that would make conservatives much more open to union organizing.
So conservatives are fine with labor so long as labor is politically neutered while corporations are not required to get 75% approval from their shareholders to make political contributions.
So Luke isn’t excited about meme coins? Bailing out Argentina? Bombing Iran? Paying for genocide? Blowing up random boats in the Caribbean? Luke has to like the measles, right? I’m sure canceling cancer research had to be high on Luke’s list when he voted for Trump. Luke didn’t really think Trump was going to help ordinary Americans did he? Him and the author do like the CHIPS Act, oh but that was Biden. I’m confused here.
Respectfully, you're kind of making the article's point for it. Most working class folks are smarter than you think and have plenty of disagreements about what Trump is doing - but the reality is that even with these mistakes the D brand is still toxic. So people are trying to pick the lesser evil while understanding that there's no guarantee they're gonna get what they want. I think it's very telling that polls show a lot of swing voters have regrets about voting for Trump, but also no desire for Kamala to have won.
Oren has been very consistent is defending some of what Trump is doing and voicing disappointment with other things. But also, he has a good point that a pro-working class right is at least being discussed now, and that's the first step towards more substantive change.
Who cares about the rule of law right? I’m the furthest thing from a Kamala supporter but to act as if Trump isn’t the most irresponsible choice ever, is a joke.
Sadly, a ton of people don’t care about the rule of law. Maybe in school they should start teaching kids the importance of liberal democracy.
Love this article - Skyler is so right that "Trump" (or any politician) will always waffle away from the tough decisions and societal revisions that most of America wants and needs. Subscribing to Skyler Adleta now....
What an amazing piece of journalism. Want to understand Trump voters and working class concerns... go talk to some working class Trump swing voters. This ought to be in the NYT, but they're too busy screaming that Trump's voters are all racist Nazis.
I am not working class: retired IT professional with a 4 yr degree who now teaches as a private school. But I attend a blue-collar church, voted Trump, and live in the country, so I am a class traitor.
The tension in the new conservativism is over the "government is the problem" (Reagan) wing vs the "govt can solve problems" (Buchanan) wing. The former is in decline but it still echoes through the room. I suspect that's why we see a lot of "macro" and too little "micro". Many of Trump's policies are Buchananite, but at 80+, his instincts are those of the Reagan wing. He's instinctually allergic to using govt in hard, specific ways for class benefit. He also has the attention span of a squirrel, which, while an improvement over term 1's attention span of a gnat, still doesn't favor long term, strategic planning.
Conservatism's younger elites are all Buchananite though, and they are strategic. Trump has done his job as a disruptor; others (like Vance) will rebuild. So as much as Luke may not be happy with results so far, to be blunt, as long as the Democrats are completely bonkers (you're living in fascism, girls can have dicks, diversity is our strength, borders are racist, illiterate illegal immigrants are beneficial) people like Luke aren't going anywhere else politically.
I understand your zeal to wave away Don's corruption, incoherence, and incompetence. Since any thinking person must acknowledge what they regularly observe, defending him isn't an option, although JD slavishly tries. But banking on JD to be a warrior for workin stiffs? I gotta chuckle on that one. Apparently you're a disciple of his second version of Don's "new" right, not his first...remember the first version is where he spoke far more negatively about Don than the NYT has (America's Hitler, cultural heroin, etc). I think he was honest the first time, but I respect your choice to buy version two.
Perhaps you're right, and JD will re-reinvent himself and eschew his newfound culture warrior identity. After all, prattling on about "girls with dicks", pet eating, etc, doesn't put much food on the table of a laid off factory worker in Toledo. It merely scratches a culture warriors mean-spirited itches, and more importantly, wins elections. To borrow a phrase, it's "cultural heroin".
So, as you predict, maybe JD will soon preside over an economic renaissance engineered and orchestrated by the federal government:). Maybe. I can see him moving the chess pieces on the board now, with his billionaire boss Peter Thiel advising him on how to best help the workin stiffs. Maybe they can emulate the other successful centrally planned economies of history like the ones in, um, well, uh, gosh, I can't think of any right now, can you?
People change, Karl. Life experience alters them, and JD's livf experience changed enormously from 2015 to 2024. JD is also very young, and his ability to alter his views, I think speaks highly of his character. Too many people (esp politicians) are unwilling to re-examine their own beliefs.
It's also important to realize that the Left's cultural positions (like "girls can have dicks") not only don't put food on the table of that laid off factory worker, but are utterly nonsensical to everyone around the table too. (This is born out many polls showing such policies are most popular with white, college-ed women and decline sharply across all other race, sex, and class demos.) So while I do want the GOP to show it's willing to really work to help its recently adopted, blue-collar constituency, my larger point is that the current Democratic Party isn't an even less conducive home for that constituency.
And the Dems show little sign of altering course.
It'd be great if we could keep the trans bigotry out of this discussion. How does hating trans people help blue collar workers either? These political hatreds distract us from solving complicated economic questions.....
I don't mean to be flippant, but is it your position that stating "girls can't have dicks" (an obvious biological fact) is "trans bigotry" and "hating trans people"?
If so, you are a core Democrat voter. And encourage you the 20% of the country that agrees with you to lobby hard for the Democratic Party to stay all-in on these issues. I'll take the 80% of the country that believes in biology and reality and thinks boys have no place on the podiums of girls sports or in HS cheerleaders' locker rooms.
One of the more revealing aspects of maga's "new" right agenda is the fixation with, and attacks on, the trans community. On a superficial level, it reveals a misunderstanding of the word "new". Picking on disadvantaged elements of society merely to attain political power ain't exactly new, it's about as old as it gets. Then again, other signature issues of the "new" right-tariffs, isolationism, deficit spending, subsidization of the wealthy, etc are likewise not exactly new. What IS new is jettisoning past support of notions like freedom from government intrusion into the most personal aspects of our lives.
On a deeper level, it reveals much about those willing to make such attacks. It takes a particular type of person to countenance attacks on kids that face such unique challenges. Challenges that lead to high rates of suicide, depression, substance abuse and other ailments. But, maybe it really IS newfound concern over women's sports that motivates them. Maybe. Ya know, making sure the faceless kid a few thousand miles away doesn't get a third place ribbon in the high school cross country meet is pretty doggone important to the promised manufacturing renaissance...
Finding one's way in the world is difficult for any kid, even the kids that have everything in their favor. Civil adults should endeavor to help kids, all kids. What does it say about those who choose to make it even harder for those already facing the greatest of struggles? And for what? JD's political career? Here's hoping JD adopts yet another political identity, his original one seemed more humane. And let's all endeavor to remember the admonitions of that certain religious guy who spoke of "the least among us".
I think this ass-backwards.
It "takes a special kind of person" to teach 3rd graders that boys can be girls.
It "takes a special kind of person" to encourage mentally ill teenagers to slice off or chemically whither their body parts.
It "takes a special kind of person" to celebrate the above as liberation.
I agree that a civilized society treats its weakest members with compassion and respect. But there's nothing compassionate or respectful in these actions.
However I'm not a Millian who thinks "freedom from government intrusion" is the highest good for a society. I'm a Burkean who thinks "helping man achieve virtue" is. That difference in philosophy likely explains our differences in political views.
Thanks for this comment! I share your views that trans girls/women should not compete in girls'/women's sports. That is 20% (if that) of the trans issue, the rest being none of my business and once again having nothing to do with improving the lives and paychecks of blue-collar workers and their forgotten communities. Thank you again!
It may not put food on the table, but that's a short term problem. He'll find a job. He knows that. It may suck. It may be WalMart. But he knows he's got to do it. And he will.
His daughter has told him about the blue-haired boy that's trying to use the girls' locker room at her school -- but that's short term, not long term, and while it will piss him off, he won't likely vote on it. You're right about that.
But long term, he wants more for his 2 kids, maybe even college. And he sees a Democratic Party that: imported millions of illegals that compete for the jobs his teenagers are applying for; awards college slots based on race (DEI); and wants his daughter to lose sports scholarships to boys.
So while it is "the economy, stupid" (I think that was Carville), when pursued as vigorously as the Democratic Party has, even so-called "culture war" issues end up having very personal economic consequences.
To be clear, I'm not saying the Republican Party has very many good answers to this dude's problems (short or long term). Only that the Dems answers are (for now) not only worse but also bat-shit crazy, so Luke will likely stick with the GOP.
So JD morphing into a culture warrior, and away from a period when he told the truth, is because he "changed", from "life experience". Becoming a culture warrior is thus a form of growth and "speaks well of his character"? After he matured he embraced Don, and moved on to pet eating, the election lies, the incessant trans ads during the campaign, etc. And this is to be read as a harbinger of his future concern over the challenges of the working class. An interesting theory, I guess it's possible.
But, actual concern over the working class might be better addressed by seeking to forge the political consensus necessary to enact meaningful and lasting change? By articulating and publicly defending an actual economic agenda? Addressing the impacts of our transformation to an information/global economy demands serious, focused, long term, bipartisan effort, not the bile we too often hear.
I agree the D's are way too identity focused, it turns me off. It turns a lot of people off and is a major reason they lost last year. But the whataboutism rationalization is thin gruel. JD made his own choices, D's didn't force him to self-geld. His reputation is now forever lashed to Don. Let's hope his ending with Don is better than Mike Pence's. Which reminds me, JD has publicly said he would not have had Mike Pence's character, and he would not have supported certification of the 2020 election. Which version of the rule of law is more aligned with the long term success of the US economy, JD's or Pence's? Or is rule of law irrelevant for an economy?
Meanwhile make sure you watch Don's presser with RFK and Dr Oz, and for good measure throw in the UN speech. They're astounding, and horrifying. Then imagine that aging, angry, addled brain at 82, with Don's finger still on the button.
Good luck America.
I feel for you Karl. You seem to be politically homeless and I know from experience how difficult that is. You look around and can't find anyone articulating positions that you think are utterly obvious.
Try to tone down the emotion and look at actual policy. The Democratic Party spent 4 years all in on "boys in girl's locker rooms", "race is the most important thing about a person", "globalization is always good", and "borders are racist". You may insist they didn't actually SAY those things, but in terms of policy, that was how they governed. They did lots of other stuff, but those were the major, all-4-years, issues for the Democrats.
Compare that to Trump. You don't have to like the man. I wouldn't trust him for 5 minutes with my daughter. But again, look at policy. Some of that policy is still being worked out, but some is very clear: "colorblindness is the goal", "American citizens come before other people", "borders matter", "laws should be enforced not ignored", "men and women are different".
You may decide you think the Democrats have a better set of policies. And if so, you should vote for them. But vote based on the actual policies each group has pursued when they've governed. Emotion (particularly anger) is a very poor voting guide. As Aristotle said, only a people who have mastered individual self-government (controlling their passions) can ever be fit for collective self-government (democracy).
Oh my I'm sorry this country boy cornfused you:). This isn't about policy, that's the least of my worries. Policy ebbs and flows and can be fixed, if we can preserve a system that allows us to fix it. I'm happy on either side of the 50 yard line, I just hope to end up between the 40's. Politics for me is a mechanism to achieve consensus amongst a hugely diverse country and move forward, it's not identity like it seems to be for so many today.
At the same time, I don't think this is a normal period. I think Don has proven to us he's dangerous. I think policy is used as a form of whataboutism by Don apologists on the right. It's: well yeah there was that insurrection and the election lies, the pardons, the repeated crazy uncle moments, the blatant racism, the massive corruption, the attacks on the judiciary/corporations/law firms/universities, the hollowing out of the civil service, the flouting of science, the RFK disaster, the president publicly ordering his AG to indict his political opponents, but hey, look at the policy! Those marginal tax rates! The regulatory relief! The groovin judges!
Hopefully you're right and this is all normal, just another DC partisan squabble. But, our foremost experts on authoritarianism tell us otherwise. That's assuming expertise still matters?
I guess I'd ask if you've closely read the public statements of Don's first term cabinet, after all, he appointed them. The decorated generals. The lifelong public servants with sterling reputations. The idealistic young women serving in the White House who testified against him. The military leadership's accounts of how they "handled" him on issues related to our nuclear arsenal because of their fears. I have.
Term two is so much worse, those human guardrails are gone, replaced by incompetent loyalists in the power ministries. I fervently hope you're right, and I'm deranged. Just another TDS loon.
Good luck America.
If you can't see that JD Vance is a shape-shifting opportunist, then working class people like the one interviewed in this article are going to be even more disappointed with republicans than they are now.
Can you identify 3-4 things that tell you JD is a "shapeshifting opportunist" and not someone who sincerely changed his views?
I'm as cynical on politicians as any American. Trump Derangement Syndrome I understand. I don't share it, but I get the point of view. But I find the Vance-hatred pretty weird.
Sure. In fact, its not his political 180 on Donald Trump that proves he's an opportunist. That's a consequence, not the cause. I could fill pages listing examples of his hypocrisy but it can be summarized in a few sentences. His book, Hillbilly Elegy, which I read when it first came out, was fundamentally a tale of hope. As broken as many things are in America - dysfunctional family structure, economic strife, elite institutions acting like gatekeepers to success and prosperity - a kid like him was still able to exceed all expectations associated with his humble upbringing.
But hope is a tough sell. There's not a lot of buyers for hope. Vance realized, sometime after writing his book, that the market for grievance is much, much bigger - and, this is key - more more profitable and salient, particularly to the populist right. Hope doesn't sell, but telling people who to blame for their problems does. And Vance excels at this.
I asked for specific examples though. I agree, Vance's tone has shifted from Elegy. But look at what's happened to him since then. Elegy was written as a young, starry-eyed, ruling class baby wanting to use his Yale Law degree to solve problems. He's now got 10 years watching the ruling class up close; how could he not be far more cynical about them now? 10 years ago, he was hoping to use them to improve the world. Now he recognizes (as so many blue collar people do) that the ruling class only wants the world improved for themselves. His changed view of Trump (someone who runs on disrupting the ruling class status quo) reflects a larger changed view of his own new class?
There are millions of people in America who went through the same transition. Trump scraped by in 2016. But several million of those Hillary voters, watching the Democrats lose their mind from 2020-2024, decided Trump was the better choice in 2024. Is it really so hard to believe Vance did the same?
You're claiming Vance is hypocritical or opportunistic for this change. Maybe you're right. But you present no evidence of it. Or rather, the evidence you do present is equally compatible with Vance's shift being genuine.
Luke sounds representative of a demographic that swung towards Don in 2024. I come from a fellow flyover state and have watched the trends that challenge Luke and his family unfold over many years. It pains me to see him exploited by the founder and intellectual lodestar of the "new" right-Don.
Luke is unfortunately learning an important life lesson. History is replete with demagogues who appear in times of significant economic and social transformation. They exploit the legitimate angst felt by citizens during those times. They hold up scapegoats (brown people, the opposing party, immigrants). They dehumanize the scapegoats (they eat pets, they poison our blood, they're rapists and criminals, etc) to channel energy against the "others" while deflecting blame from themselves. They promise simplistic solutions (lower prices on day one, a manufacturing renaissance, an easy end to wars) that have no realistic chance of happening. Meanwhile, the real project is consolidation of power and the personal enrichment of the dear leader (crypto corruption, 747's, golf resorts in Vietnam). This is made worse by elites who vouch for the leader while making their own compromises with him that financially benefit themselves (biz "leaders", think tanks, fellow party members).
Who could blame Luke for being frustrated. The "new" right's crowning legislative achievement-the BBB, screws people like him while transferring wealth to plutocrats. He's watching Don pocket billions through his crypto corruption. He sees Don fixated not on him, but on retribution for his enemies. He sees administration officials let off the hook after being recorded by the FBI taking paper bags of cash to defraud the government.
The trends impacting Luke are systemic and not easily fixed, especially in the short term. He's been told to expect a manufacturing renaissance from tariffs, but manufacturing trends will continue as they have for decades-we'll continue to produce record output while employing fewer and fewer people, trends that will likely accelerate.
The first thing Luke needs is to be told the truth instead of being lied to. This week's example of Don's willingness to lie to people like Luke was his horrific press conference with RFK Jr and Dr Oz. Take the time to watch our president in action, everyone needs to see not just his foolish lies, but his mental decline. His incoherent babble. There are times he makes Joepa appear lucid, not an easy achievement.
Luke, here's a tip. Watch what people do, not what they say. And keep the pressure on your buds at AC, they're enabling Don and his exploitation.
Good luck America.
One, Trump's been in office for eight months...
Two, the shift of blue-collar workers to the GOP (while college-educated workers migrate to the DNC) is a process that's been ongoing for decades. Trump is the symptom, not the cause, of that migration, which predates him.
In fact, Trump is the inflection point, representing the arrival of the newcomers and the subsequent expulsion of the Republican old guard (Bill Kristol, Lynn Cheney, etc.). Trump is not the product of a civil war within the Republican Party, but rather an invasion.
Two comments. First some of the funding for FISC comes from an increase in the tax rate for the top four tiers. I cannot see Republicans voting for that. Second CHIPS act is sited for a successful creation of manufacturing facility. Too bad the Trump administration is doing away with so much of it that creates working class jobs in solar and wind energy. Meanwhile China surges ahead. Maybe Luke or his children will one day have fun jobs mining coal.
"I feel like being working class in our country means that you top out at a small two—or, if you’re lucky—three-bedroom ranch."
I am sorry does he expect to afford a castle as a blue collar worker? Anything else? How about a star ship to go along with the fries? And if a blue collar worker can afford a castle where should the managers live? On the Moon? Since when the "American Dream" transform into every construction worker thinking they should be rolling like a Rothschild?
This contempt for working class ambition is exactly the issue. And why does the manager have to live ON THE MOON if the worker has a castle? Your perceptions have been twisted by the wealth gaps that have risen only in recent decades, and are not at all "conservative" in a classic sense. Luke would probably be quite happy if his salary was 1/20th of the CEO's, which would be the 1965 ratio, not 1/350th, which it is today. He puts in 10 hours a day doing hard and valuable work, and wants dignity in return, which means a lifestyle that is on the same planet, conceptually, as management.
Not enough people are directing their anger *at Democrats* for having such colossal policy failures that even Trump’s flimsy promises sound good.
Do you know that your friend Trump, in order to finance the tax cuts for himself and his billionaire friends, has included in the Big Beautiful Bill a huge tax increase for incomes under 30,000 dollars?
I am neither working class or even working (retired) and I too am losing patience. My concerns are more around foreign policy but I agree with everything in this article and more. Trump needs to stop jawboning the Fed to lower rates. Inflation which affects the working class much more than the laptop class is not beaten yet and the softening of the labor market consists of more Americans having jobs being offset by a larger number of immigrants departing. Trump needs to take the W here. Yeah, interest rates make housing difficult but I can remember having a 17% mortgage. Better to address the housing market by the other policies suggested in the article and especially by whacking the hedge funds which are causing a lot of the run up in prices. They are also affecting medical costs and even veterinarians and creating medical deserts where rural working class families live. Probably this is best addressed with tax policies and not by giving hedge funds access to the 401k market which has been proposed. It is reasonable to assume that they will follow their normal pump and dump practice. Another overlooked problem is the CAFE standards which are designed to force Americans to buy cars they don't want by prohibiting the manufacture of cars and trucks they do want. The EV nonsense has exacerbated this but now that bubble seems to have popped and I am not sure what happens next. Make IC cars even smaller? The tiny cars required by CAFE make it impossible to fit more than two car seats for children or haul around your children's soccer team. If you want to do that, you have to pay inflated prices for larger vehicles. This, after child care, is probably the 2nd largest financial disincentive to having children.
This is what the Trump administration really needs to do. The democrats did this although the delivery is not consistent enough. The chips and technology act passed in the Biden administration is responsible for the investment in the intel plant so the Trump administration needs to complete it expeditiously ! And not promise quick results when the situation clearly is going to take longer 😎
Conservatives offering up, approving and implementing a socialistic program like FISC? That's a laugher.
Both Luke and Skyler add a lot to this matter. It is wonderful they have this forum to express their insights. But at the end of the day, without some form of worker organization, working families are going to be left out.
I've seen the unions co-opted for so many decades as funding vehicles for the Dems that I am wary of this. Alter the Taft-Hartley rules to make unions confine themselves to issues that directly involve labor relations. Perhaps eliminate their ability to make political contributions unless 75% of their members vote to endorse the candidate. Ban public-sector unions completely. Policy changes like that would make conservatives much more open to union organizing.
So conservatives are fine with labor so long as labor is politically neutered while corporations are not required to get 75% approval from their shareholders to make political contributions.
I would prefer to end corporate, union, and nonprofit political contributions entirely. Politicians can raise money from individual voters. Full stop.
I have some sympathy for that, so long as done concurrently for all groups.