While many still treat him as an enigma, a man of contradictions, an Ivy League-educated venture capitalist turned populist warrior, Vance is, in reality, a figure of chilling coherence. His transformation from an anti-Trump commentator to the chief ideologue of America’s hard-right movement is no personal evolution but a reflection of a larger shift in the political landscape.
More than a mere Trumpist, he represents the next phase of reactionary politics: methodical, deeply ideological, and far more dangerous than his President.
This is what makes him the most dangerous man in America today.
The Trumpocene’s Misunderstanding of Europe
The Trumpocene era is defined by its contempt for institutions, expertise, and historical context, nowhere clearer than in its disastrous approach to Europe. While the first Trump administration displayed open disdain for European allies, the current administration, with J.D. Vance at its ideological helm, treats them with deliberate hostility. Vance embodies this ideological stance, yet paradoxically understands Europe least of all.
His speeches abroad, laden with shallow anti-globalist rhetoric and explicit admiration for Europe’s far-right strongmen, betray a fundamental ignorance of the historical, economic, and political complexities that underpin the continent’s stability. Unlike Trump, whose disdain for Europe was impulsive, Vance’s antagonism is methodically ideological. At the Munich Security Conference, he spoke not as a diplomat seeking alliances but as a provocateur deliberately fracturing them. His criticisms of European leaders, particularly regarding measures against far-right extremism, weren’t mere irony; they were calculated interventions designed to embolden extremist factions from Germany to Italy.
Vance’s misinterpretation of NATO is more than mere isolationism, it is a profound ideological miscalculation. He dismisses NATO as outdated, ignoring its adaptive nature and critical role amid evolving security threats. His opposition to military aid for Ukraine is not simply policy divergence; it signals a deliberate realignment of U.S. interests away from liberal democracies toward reactionary ethno-nationalists stretching from Moscow to Budapest.
Yet Vance is more contemptuous of Europe’s social model than its security architecture. To him, European welfare states represent not a sustainable balance between capitalism and social democracy, but ideological enemies to be dismantled. In Vance’s America, religious nationalism, economic insecurity, and governmental subservience to reactionary ideology reign supreme. Europe’s worker protections, public healthcare, and state economic interventions, cornerstones of the European social model, represent existential threats to his worldview.
Ultimately, Vance is no statesman. He is a culture warrior who uses Europe as an ideological battleground. His admiration for Viktor Orbán’s authoritarian Hungary reveals his true vision for America: a nation without democratic checks, subordinated entirely to ideological purity. He sees in Europe neither allies nor historical lessons, only opportunities to export and amplify his reactionary agenda.
The critical question is no longer whether Vance understands Europe, but whether Europe recognises the urgency of understanding, and resisting, Vance.
“He is a culture warrior cosplaying as a statesman.”
Europe’s Crisis
Vance’s hostility towards Europe does not exist in isolation. Across the continent, a surge of far-right populism and authoritarian reactionary politics provides him fertile ground to promote his ideological project. His admiration for authoritarian-leaning figures like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, who similarly employ anti-globalist rhetoric while dismantling democratic institutions from within, signals an ideological alignment rather than mere rhetorical affinity.
Vance exploits real vulnerabilities within Europe, vulnerabilities created by decades of neoliberal austerity policies, rising inequality, and the centrist political establishment’s failure to adequately address social discontent. His criticisms of Germany’s policies against far-right extremism are not just ironic, they are calculated attempts to embolden far-right parties like Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), Marine Le Pen’s National Rally in France, and other extremist factions eager to dismantle Europe’s liberal-democratic consensus. In doing so, Vance does not merely misunderstand Europe; he intentionally exacerbates existing fractures, aiming to accelerate the continent’s drift towards reactionary nationalism.
Yet Europe itself is not blameless. Centrist and neoliberal governments have spent decades eroding the social protections, economic security, and democratic participation that once insulated the continent from far-right incursions. Austerity, deregulation, and the hollowing-out of social welfare have undermined public trust in democratic institutions. Vance’s ability to weaponise these crises highlights not only the danger he poses but also underscores Europe’s own urgent need for political renewal and democratic restoration.
Zelensky and the Betrayal of Ukraine
Vance’s stance on Ukraine is more than just a retreat from international engagement, it is an active betrayal of the democratic world. His dismissal of military aid to Kyiv as “not our fight” echoes Kremlin talking points and signals an abandonment of the principles that have defined America’s role in European security for decades. President Volodymyr Zelensky, once celebrated as a Churchillian figure standing against Russian aggression, now finds himself abandoned by a U.S. administration that has shifted from mere indifference to outright hostility.
But Vance’s attacks on Zelensky go beyond policy, his disgraceful personal campaign against the Ukrainian leader reveals the sheer bad faith at the heart of his position. Last month, in an Oval Office meeting, Vance retrospectively attacked Zelensky, demanding he “show gratitude” to the American people for their support, despite the Ukrainian president having done so countless times. He specifically referenced Zelensky’s visit to a Scranton weapons manufacturer during the 2024 election, where he had explicitly thanked the American people for their aid. Yet Vance, feigning outrage, accused Zelensky of failing to express appreciation and went further, suggesting that his visit was a partisan act, an absurd charge designed to fabricate a scandal and poison bipartisan backing for Ukraine.
This calculated assault on Zelensky did not go unnoticed. European leaders reacted with shock, condemning the Trump administration’s hostility towards Ukraine as reckless and dangerous. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and French President Emmanuel Macron both publicly rebuked Vance’s remarks, warning that such rhetoric undermines not just Ukraine but the entire European security architecture. Even officials within NATO expressed alarm, stating that such unfounded attacks play directly into the hands of Moscow, further isolating the U.S. from its European allies.
The Trump administration’s latest so-called “peace proposal” only deepens this betrayal. Announced unilaterally, the 30-day ceasefire plan was drafted without meaningful input from Kyiv or European allies, reinforcing concerns that it serves Russian interests rather than seeking genuine peace. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s response was telling, offering only vague interest while setting unacceptable conditions, including Ukraine renouncing its NATO ambitions and ceding occupied territories. These demands are not steps toward peace; they are a roadmap to surrender.
The reaction in Europe has been one of outrage. European leaders have decried the move as a dangerous capitulation that legitimises Russian aggression and undermines Ukraine’s sovereignty. The Biden-era coalition that ensured a steady flow of military and economic support to Kyiv has been shattered, leaving Ukraine to fight for its survival while America drifts towards an alignment with autocrats.
The consequences of this reversal are dire. Without steadfast U.S. military and economic support, Ukraine faces an increasingly difficult battle against Russian expansionism, and Europe is left to contend with a war on its doorstep without its most powerful ally. This is not strategic realism, it is capitulation. For Vance, the fate of Ukraine is secondary to his broader ideological mission: realigning the United States away from democratic allies and towards reactionary regimes that share his contempt for liberalism.
The Making of an Ideologue
In 2016, Vance was still the kind of figure that the liberal media could embrace. Hillbilly Elegy, his memoir of a chaotic Appalachian childhood, was held up as a Rosetta Stone for understanding Trump’s America, even as its author warned that Trump himself was a menace. But Vance was never an outsider looking in on conservatism. His book was always a fundamentally reactionary document, laying the blame for America’s social and economic decline squarely on the failings of its underclass rather than on the structures that made their precarity inevitable. In this, he was always aligned with the core tenets of the American right: personal responsibility over collective struggle, moral decay over systemic injustice.
By the time he secured his Senate seat in Ohio in 2022, Vance had abandoned any pretence of moderation. What seemed like a total ideological transformation, his conversion to a fervent Trumpist, was in fact the logical conclusion of his worldview. No longer was Trump a threat to democracy; no longer Hitler, now, he was its saviour. No longer were America’s institutions in need of reform; now, they were inherently corrupt and illegitimate. Where many hard-right politicians attempt to shroud their extremism in the language of patriotism, Vance has no such hesitations. His vision for America is explicit: a country remade in the image of a Christian nationalist order, hierarchical, rigid, and closed off from the outside world.
“His vision for America is explicit: a country remade in the image of a Christian nationalist order.”
Understanding Vance: Is this Fascism?
Throughout this piece, I’ve struggled to nail down precisely what term best captures J.D. Vance’s ideology. At various points, I’ve described him as reactionary, far-right, authoritarian, and Christian nationalist—each term capturing an essential but incomplete facet of his political identity. But what exactly is this ideology? Is it simply Trumpism sharpened, or does it represent something closer to classic fascism?
On examination, Vance’s politics echo historical fascism in important ways: his disdain for pluralism and democratic norms; his obsession with national decline and cultural degeneracy; his construction of enemies, both internal and external; and his drive towards authoritarian governance founded upon religious and ethnic nationalism. But there are crucial distinctions. Traditional fascism emerged from mass mobilisations, street-level violence, and militaristic nationalism. In contrast, Vance represents a distinctly modern variant, what can accurately be termed “neo-fascism” or “post-liberal authoritarianism.” It maintains the core authoritarian, nationalist, and hierarchical impulses of classic fascism but adapts strategically to the 21st-century landscape, seeking power not through overt street violence but through institutional capture and ideological coherence.
This distinction matters because it clarifies why Vance’s project is particularly insidious. He does not openly announce his authoritarianism with paramilitary spectacle; instead, he subtly dismantles democracy from within, cloaking his authoritarian ambitions beneath populist rhetoric, economic nationalism, and religious revivalism. Recognising Vance as a neo-fascist rather than a simple Trumpist is essential if his opponents, both in America and abroad, are to develop an effective response before it is too late.
“Vance does not openly announce his authoritarianism with paramilitary spectacle; he subtly dismantles democracy from within.”
The Theocratic Turn
Central to Vance’s ideology is his religious radicalism. His conversion to Catholicism in 2019, under the tutelage of figures within the reactionary Catholic right, coincided with a growing hostility to liberal democracy itself. No longer a believer in pluralism, he has become an enthusiastic participant in the burgeoning post-liberal movement, which sees America’s secular constitutional order as a failed experiment to be replaced with an explicitly religious state.
His admiration for Hungary’s Viktor Orbán is particularly telling. Orbán’s model of governance, weak democratic institutions, state-backed religious nationalism, a clampdown on opposition, is no mere inspiration for Vance; it is a blueprint. His speeches now openly reference the need to dismantle “globalist” institutions, reduce the influence of independent media, and reshape America’s legal structures to entrench conservative rule.
This is not idle rhetoric. In his role as Vice President, Vance has quietly cultivated a new generation of hard-right thinkers within the White House, pushing policies that mirror Orbán’s consolidation of power. Proposals to gut civil service protections, impose extreme restrictions on reproductive rights, and expand executive authority in ways unseen since the Nixon era are no longer fringe ideas; they are official policy discussions.
Economic Nationalism
Vance has positioned himself as a champion of the working class, advocating for economic nationalism and the re-shoring of American manufacturing. He has supported tariffs, (a policy whose effectiveness remains questionable) criticised corporations outsourcing jobs to countries like China, accusing them of exploiting “literal slave” labour. Yet, his legislative record tells a different story. He has opposed the PRO Act, which would strengthen union protections, and his economic policies, despite their nationalist framing, align with corporate interests rather than the workers he claims to champion. His brand of economic nationalism is not a challenge to neoliberalism, but its authoritarian mutation: a state-controlled economy designed to enrich reactionary elites under the guise of populism.
Crushing Dissent: The Right’s War on Free Speech
J.D. Vance’s rise has also emboldened the American right’s broader war on the First Amendment. The effort to dismantle press freedoms and suppress political dissent is not an accident of Trumpist authoritarianism, it is central to the project Vance represents. To consolidate power, the right must first neutralise its critics.
- Dismantling Independent Media
The closure of Voice of America (VOA) and other U.S.-funded media organisations marks an unprecedented effort to control the flow of information. Over 1,300 journalists have been placed on leave, silencing news organisations that historically promoted democratic values. This purge mirrors authoritarian regimes, where independent reporting is replaced by government propaganda. - Barring the Press from the White House
The Associated Press has been banned from White House press events, an act of outright censorship that signals a shift toward state-controlled media. - The Legal War on Journalism
Conservatives aligned with the administration are mounting a direct challenge to New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), the Supreme Court ruling that protects journalists from politically motivated defamation suits. If overturned, this would allow politicians to sue publications into bankruptcy for unflattering coverage, making investigative journalism a financial risk. (see below)
The war on dissent goes beyond the press. Activists are being targeted with direct state repression. Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate student and green card holder, was arrested by ICE for his pro-Palestinian activism. Despite not being charged with a crime, he now faces deportation under a rarely used immigration provision that allows the government to remove non-citizens if their presence is deemed a “foreign policy concern.” The administration has also revoked $400 million in federal grants to Columbia University—an act widely seen as retaliation for allowing pro-Palestinian activism on campus.
Isolationism or Alignment?
Vance’s foreign policy is not merely a retreat into isolationism; it is a calculated rejection of alliances that do not serve his ideological project. He has positioned himself as a leading critic of NATO, questioning America’s role in the alliance while simultaneously echoing the rhetoric of the European far right. His stance on Ukraine mirrors the talking points of the Kremlin: he has called the war “not our fight” and opposes continued military aid, despite the existential threat Russian expansionism poses to European stability.
This is not traditional Republican nationalism but something more insidious: a new ideological axis that aligns the U.S. with religious-nationalist strongmen like Orbán and Modi rather than liberal democracies. This signals a broader realignment, one that embraces authoritarian governance, prioritises reactionary cultural politics over international stability, and sees democracy itself as expendable in the pursuit of power.
The End of the Illusion
The gutting of the federal bureaucracy is already well underway under Elon Musk’s DOGE administration, with entire departments shuttered, regulatory agencies defunded, and thousands of state workers forced into unemployment. But for Vance and his allies, this is only the beginning. The deliberate hollowing out of state capacity ensures that any future Democratic administration inherits a government incapable of governing. The goal is not just to weaken institutions but to make them irreparable, clearing the way for an America where power is exercised not through public administration but through direct executive control.
Unlike Trump, whose authoritarian instincts were often undermined by incompetence and personal vanity, Vance is a true believer. His vision for America is not one of chaos but of discipline, of a rigid, hierarchical order in which dissent is crushed, opposition is neutralised, and power is concentrated in the hands of those who will wield it without constraint.
The question is no longer whether American democracy will survive another term of far-right rule, but whether it can survive at all. With Vance at the helm, the U.S. is not merely flirting with authoritarianism, it is laying the groundwork for a new political order, one that seeks not just to challenge the liberal world order but to dismantle it entirely.
And this time, it will do so with precision.
Book Review (45) Books (49) Britain (15) Capitalism (9) China (7) Conservative Government (35) Creeping Fascism (12) diary (11) Donald J Trump (33) Elon Musk (8) Europe (7) Film (10) France (12) Gaza (7) Imperialism (13) Israel (9) Keir Starmer (7) Labour Government (17) Labour Party (8) Marxist Theory (10) Migrants (11) Palestine (9) Protest (13) Russia (10) Suella Braverman (8) tarrifs (7) Television (7) Trade Unionism (7) Ukraine (8) United States of America (62) War (15) Work (7) Working Class (8)
