By John Q. Hosedrinker 
While Donald Trump catalyzed the Republican Party’s radicalization, it predated his political rise, as evidenced by the presence of young Republican leaders at the 2017 Charlottesville rally. Trump’s unique contribution was providing a platform for public cruelty and hatred, which drew immense support. His refusal to apologize or back down created a media frenzy, overshadowing rivals and solidifying his popularity. Politicians like Vance emulate Trump’s refusal to condemn supporters, understanding that embracing this behavior is advantageous for their future campaigns.
Read the original article here
JD Vance Just Gave Us a Preview of Trumpism Without Trump | The vice president doesn’t see why full-grown Republican men should have to apologize for being racist Hitler lovers.
The discussion centers on JD Vance, and how he might represent a future for the Republican Party after Trump. The consensus is that Vance is attempting to emulate Trump’s political style, but with limited success. He’s considered to lack the unique charisma and authenticity that defines Trump’s appeal.
A key element is the exposure of texts and comments, possibly revealing a deeper ideological alignment within the party. These texts, allegedly from within the Republican ranks, expose views sympathetic to racist and even fascist ideologies. This suggests a potential internal conflict and a willingness to embrace more extreme views within the party, particularly after Trump’s departure.
The critique of Vance is multi-faceted. It’s suggested that he’s inauthentic, shifting his stances to suit the moment. His “Trump-lite” approach is seen as failing to resonate because he lacks the same inherent connection with the base. This suggests a potential limitation on the lasting impact of Trumpism.
The core issue is how this reflects the broader conservative philosophy, framing it as fundamentally hierarchical. The article argues that conservatism, at its core, emphasizes established hierarchies and institutions, and that a feeling of societal progress encroaching on those hierarchies is a trigger for more extreme responses. This leads to embracing the ideologies of people like Hitler, who are seen as leaders of tradition.
The comments emphasize that conservatives see certain groups as inherently “more/less” than others, with this being the foundation of conservatism. When these hierarchies are threatened, or when those at the bottom gain what’s perceived as undue access to rights and resources, the response is often a retreat to more extreme ideologies, including nationalism, racism, and even fascism. This worldview is inherently discriminatory and exclusionary.
The author criticizes Vance’s perceived hypocrisy, particularly in the context of his marriage to a woman of Indian descent. It suggests this exposes a moral disconnect, as Vance could espouse hateful views while still having a family member who would be the direct target of those views. Vance’s perceived lack of genuine beliefs, his willingness to be a political chameleon, is a point of particular criticism.
The discussion touches on the importance of accountability. The prevailing view is that apologies from such individuals would be insincere and, therefore, meaningless. The solution proposed is not forgiveness, but rather holding those people accountable and removing them from positions of power. This includes the idea that their political careers should be over.
The underlying argument is that Trumpism, while unique to Trump, is simply a symptom of deeper ideological currents within the Republican Party. The fear is that, after Trump, other figures like Vance, with more overt and extreme views, might seize control. It’s argued that this shift is not just about individual personalities, but about fundamental beliefs regarding hierarchy and social order.
The author suggests that there is a long-term plan and that embracing these extremist ideologies is not a misunderstanding. Instead, they are the true goals of these individuals. The emphasis on “knowing your place” is a clear reflection of their beliefs.
The article concludes with a warning not to underestimate this threat and, in fact, to take action against those who embrace such ideas. It’s an urgent call for vigilance, calling out those who promote racism and fascism. The central theme is a rejection of the notion that these individuals “don’t have to apologize” because they have no intention of changing their beliefs or actions.