Skip to main content

More about J.D. Vance

 


This is not a day-to-day politics blog. Even in the midst of the final stretch of a Presidential campaign, that is NOT what this is, as my readers have surely noticed. I will not, for example, be reviewing this week's debate here. 

Nor is it a personal commentary on J.D. Vance, the VP nominee on the Republican side. 

But Vance does seem likely to eclipse even Sarah Palin in the annals of unforgotten unforgiven running mate choices.

Not long ago a reporter for a local television station, (a Fox station, if it matters) asked Vance the following simple question. It was phrased as two questions, but we may treat it as one, "What makes you smile? what makes you happy?" 

This is known as a softball. Nobody gets the Pulitzer for them, but they aren't "bogus," either. They are generally an opening for a candidate to get an uncomplicated message out. If someone asks a politician, "what makes you smile?" -- what is a non-JD answer? A normal US politician, back when we had them, might have said, "this great country, liberty, fireworks, full employment, stable prices all make me smile. Thanks for asking." That would work.

Or maybe, "time with my wife and kids makes me smile, as does time with old friends, but I am willing to sacrifice those smiles for the good of the country by immersing myself in this campaign." That would be a good answer.

It is difficult to think of a worse answer than the one Vance gave. "I smile at a lot of things including bogus questions from the media, man."

Part of what makes it so awful is the strained sense of victimhood. Vance wants to see himself as the victim even when he is being served up an open-ended question of the sort he might more plausibly complain of NOT being asked once in a while. He is obviously nobody's victim at this moment, yet he has to see himself as such, so he has to see this question as "bogus".

But another part of what makes this answer so odd is that final word, "man." It sounds like Vance decided while giving the absurdly angry aggrieved answer that he was sounding like a jerk, and it would be better to sound like he was making a joke about being a jerk. Hence the casualness of that final word, man.

Nobody has found it funny. Making one's self a pathetic spectacle is not a joke. And a proclivity to do so is, to put the matter gently, an inadequate recommendation for public office.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
9 comments
Read more

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
17 comments
Read more

Recent Controversies Involving Nassim Taleb, Part I

I've written about Nassim Taleb on earlier occasions in this blog. I'll let you do the search yourself, dear reader, for the full background. The short answer to the question "who is Taleb?" is this: he is a 57 year old man born in Lebanon, educated in France, who has been both a hedge fund manager and a derivatives trader. He retired from active participation from the financial world sometime between 2004 and 2006, and has been a full-time writer and provocateur ever since. Taleb's writings for the general public began where one might expect -- in the field where he had made his money -- and he explained certain financial issues to a broad audiences in a very dramatic non-technical way. Since then, he has widened has fields of study, writing about just about everything, applying the intellectual tools he honed in that earlier work. As you might have gather from the above, I respect Taleb, though I have sometimes been critical of him when my own writing ab...
4 comments
Read more