Good analysis. One thing the right is clearly missing is a cohesive platform and conservative vision. Perhaps Vance, if successful in this election can provide some framework for this, but it’s going to be an uphill battle while he tries to balance tempering Trump’s rhetoric with corrections and contextual elaboration to television news …
Good analysis. One thing the right is clearly missing is a cohesive platform and conservative vision. Perhaps Vance, if successful in this election can provide some framework for this, but it’s going to be an uphill battle while he tries to balance tempering Trump’s rhetoric with corrections and contextual elaboration to television news hosts that are perpetually in a state of hysteria (I would argue is cosmetic and performative for most, not to mention the epitome of hypocrisy). When the only unifying (using this term loosely) figure for republicans dies, if there’s not a clear center of power and direction, the splitting factions of the right in a chaotic socio-political environment has as much potential for worsening the general atmosphere. To the degree that the left is off the deep end, a fractured right with factions vying for power and recognition will almost certainly exacerbate the chaos.
No argument there- but I’m not sure if that’s his rhetoric or if he feels compelled or has been subtly instructed to back Trump no matter what. Your point still stands, however. I think if I were Vance, I’d be making the following calculations:
If I don’t at least appear to be in lockstep agreement with Trump, it hurts chances of being elected no matter which way you slice it.
I only have to endure one term and even though Trump is pretty fucking far from a classical republican, it’s still better than losing.
This is my only chance at NOT fading into obscurity and it’s plausible that if he gets defeated in a general election, that hurts his chances at another senate term.
So is it HIS rhetoric? Well, it came from his mouth. But I have a feeling he’s playing a calculated long game.
Good analysis. One thing the right is clearly missing is a cohesive platform and conservative vision. Perhaps Vance, if successful in this election can provide some framework for this, but it’s going to be an uphill battle while he tries to balance tempering Trump’s rhetoric with corrections and contextual elaboration to television news hosts that are perpetually in a state of hysteria (I would argue is cosmetic and performative for most, not to mention the epitome of hypocrisy). When the only unifying (using this term loosely) figure for republicans dies, if there’s not a clear center of power and direction, the splitting factions of the right in a chaotic socio-political environment has as much potential for worsening the general atmosphere. To the degree that the left is off the deep end, a fractured right with factions vying for power and recognition will almost certainly exacerbate the chaos.
Vance should temper his own rhetoric first.
No argument there- but I’m not sure if that’s his rhetoric or if he feels compelled or has been subtly instructed to back Trump no matter what. Your point still stands, however. I think if I were Vance, I’d be making the following calculations:
If I don’t at least appear to be in lockstep agreement with Trump, it hurts chances of being elected no matter which way you slice it.
I only have to endure one term and even though Trump is pretty fucking far from a classical republican, it’s still better than losing.
This is my only chance at NOT fading into obscurity and it’s plausible that if he gets defeated in a general election, that hurts his chances at another senate term.
So is it HIS rhetoric? Well, it came from his mouth. But I have a feeling he’s playing a calculated long game.