From Post-Liberal to Fascist — The political evolution of J. D. Vance

The library of the Yale law school. Maybe Vance is sitting there somewhere.

[Ken Gray] The notes below are reprinted from a post by Fr. Cyril Hovorun shared by Edmonton-based theologian Stephen Martin. I have edited the English translation for accuracy and length, and have added a few links. Before sharing Fr. Cyril’s notes I offer a few of my own thoughts.

Watching leaders like J. D. Vance and Donald Trump spew their bizarre and injurious notions of how we all might live together has me wondering where all these sinister ideas come from. We know that Trump watches daily doses of Fox News (Cue Pete Hegseth). He (and we) may have read Vance’s Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis (2016) in which some clues may be found.

I wonder if there is a more formidable ideology discernible somewhere, something beyond a system where the filthy rich make get more rich at the expense of everyone else. Evidence suggests that with Trump this may indeed be his only reason for being. As the good book says, “the love of money is the root of all evil.” (1 Timothy 6:10)  I don’t hear MAGA folks quoting this verse often, if ever.

All political practice is rooted somewhere—in the writings of authors and researchers, in schools of thought, through the influence of mentors and teachers, in family traditions accepted or rejected, through the influence of media of all sorts—some influences are life-giving and communal; others are selfish, narcissistic, mean-spirited, and soul- and community-destroying. Some “inspire the formation of a political culture capable of transforming a chaotic polyphony into a moral climate of mutual respect, communication, and shared values.” [Tomáš Halík]. Others thrive on instability and chaos.paul kahn,carl schmitt,

Christian, Jewish and Islamic traditions unite well under the banner of the so-called Golden Rule. “Treat others as you wish yourself to be treated”; put another way, “do not treat others as you do not wish yourself to be treated.” This ancient practice is so simple; it’s outcomes could be so life-giving and compassionate. Wishful thinking? Possibly. But how else might we live together?

Such a rule inspires and encourages me personally—I am willing to bet my life on it. Others however, choose to live differently. But why? I am not suggesting that I have everything figured out for everyone in every place. An arrogant privilege serves no one well. Over many years I have been blessed with wise friends, family members, colleagues and characters,  who have taught me how to live well. Is Trump simply a product of a family addicted to wealth and power? Is Vance simply trying to recover a fantasy patriarchal worldview? For both, their self-understanding drives their speech and action.

For Vance in particular many of his ideas and strategies germinated during law studies at Yale. With thanks to Fr. Cyril Hovorun here is a cogent analysis of Vance’s journey from post-liberalism towards autocracy, what many now call fascism. I have highlighted in bold type certain phrases that have been uttered verbatim in public discourse in recent days.

[Fr. Cyril Hovorun] “I was in Yale at the same time as US vice president Vance was studying there. He graduated from law school in 2013. I moved to Yale in 2012 and the school’s library was my favorite place to collect political theology and ecclesiology. Most likely, I’ve crossed paths with Vance somewhere, but without meeting.

I wanted to share a couple of points that might add to his portrait and the policies of the Trump administration in general that have anything to do with Yale.

Vance was closely acquainted with law professor Paul Khan; he became his assistant and even lived in his home. Kahn is a very interesting character. In addition to legal science, he was interested in political theology. A year before I arrived at Yale, he published a book called Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty at Columbia University. I was there in Yale and read this book and the controversy against it. In particular Kahn reflected on the classic of political theology — Carl Schmitt’s book of the same name but published in 1922.

In his book, Schmitt introduced the term “political theology” and offered it as a tool to legitimize autocracy to enhance a nation’s sovereignty. In particular, when Hitler was elected chancellor but when his power was limited by the Weimar Constitution and the presidency of the republic, Schmitt promoted the idea that extraordinary circumstances required the exclusion of the leader from the restrictive framework of the law.

In his book, Khan assumed that Schmitt’s ideas could be adapted to liberal America. Actually, what Trump is doing now is the embodiment of Schmitt’s advice. For example, when he writes that “he who saves his country does not break the law” he summarizes Schmitt’s main idea of political theology. Of course, I doubt Trump has heard of Schmitt or Kahn, but Vance certainly has.

Another influence on Vance, and by extension, Trump, is the school of post-liberalism that flourished in Yale and is even called Yale because of it. This school especially showed itself in the theology department where I worked. It’s founders were biblical scholar and theologian Hans Frei, who wrote a doctorate at Yale (I read it) and who introduced the term post-liberalism, and Lutheran theologian George Lindbeck, who died only in 2018 and was still in Yale when I was there.

Listening to Vance in Washington recently, I found it interesting to hear him refer to Patristic theological sources in his speech about free conscience, and that it doesn’t necessarily have to be liberal. What I heard was akin to both Kahn and Lindbeck, only in a very simplified manner. For them, freedom is also absolute, but not the same as liberalism. This is the same thing Vance preached to the Europeans in Munich a few days ago.” [end]

[Ken Gray] So if this is how it all started, where will it all end? To me, that seems a lifetime away. Thoughts, prayers, and resistance friends.