To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
U.S. Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) arrives at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee on July 15, 2024.
Both parties now engage in a kind of political theater, where the appearance of representation often substitutes for meaningful policy reforms.
In a move that surprised few but disappointed many, former U.S. President Donald Trump has chosen JD Vance, the bestselling author of Hillbilly Elegy and junior senator from Ohio, as his potential running mate for the 2024 presidential election. This choice, while generating the expected media buzz, represents far more than just another calculated political maneuver. It embodies a troubling trend in American politics: the weaponization of identity politics by both major parties to create a veneer of representation while sidestepping substantive policy changes.
Vance's nomination is a clear play for the rural working-class vote, a demographic that has become increasingly crucial to Republican electoral success. His personal narrative—rising from an impoverished Appalachian-adjacent background to Yale Law School and eventual political office—is meant to resonate with voters who feel left behind and "forgotten" by globalization and technological change. In this way, the GOP is attempting its own version of identity politics, one focused not on racial or ethnic minorities, but on the white working class that forms much of its base.
This strategy mirrors long-standing Democratic efforts to court historically marginalized communities through high-profile appointments and symbolic gestures. Both parties now engage in a kind of political theater, where the appearance of representation often substitutes for meaningful policy reforms. It's a game where faces change, but the underlying power structures too often remain frustratingly the same.
JD Vance's meteoric rise from obscure memoirist to potential vice presidential nominee encapsulates the GOP's attempted pivot towards a more worker-friendly image. His critiques of coastal elites and championing of Rust Belt revival have positioned him as a voice for the disaffected working class. Yet, a closer examination reveals a stark disconnect between Vance's rhetoric and his actual policy positions.
While Vance speaks passionately about the struggles of working-class Americans, his actual views and voting record in the Senate has consistently aligned with traditional Republican pro-business stances. He has voiced support for tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the wealthy and policies directly threatening the power of unions. Indeed behind his "pro-worker" stance appears to be a xenophobic nationalism centred on the mass deportation of immigrants.
The selection of Vance represents an attempt by the Republican establishment to co-opt the language of economic populism without embracing its substance.
The rise of figures like JD Vance reflects a new conservative policy agenda championed by groups such as American Compass, which seeks to blend traditional conservative values with populist economic nationalism. This approach advocates for policies like family-friendly labor laws and restrictions on global trade, supposedly representing a new "Trumpian version of the GOP, the one that threw away the country club, Chamber of Commerce, free trade, and foreign wars."
However, beneath this worker-friendly veneer lies a fundamentally corporate-aligned ideology. While paying lip service to workers' concerns, this brand of "national conservatism" often stops short of embracing true economic democracy or structural reforms that would significantly shift power to workers. Instead, it offers a limited, top-down version of economic populism that ultimately preserves corporate interests and existing power structures.
This contradiction lays bare the hollowness of the GOP's newfound "populist" messaging. It is a Party that invites the head of the Teamsters to speak at its convention while doing all it can to undermine unions and actual worker power. The selection of Vance represents an attempt by the Republican establishment to co-opt the language of economic populism without embracing its substance. By elevating a figure who can speak convincingly about working-class struggles, the party hopes to maintain its grip on a crucial voting bloc while continuing to advance policies that often work against their economic interests.
This approach is not without precedent. The Tea Party movement of the early 2010s similarly channeled working-class anger into support for policies that ultimately benefited the wealthy and corporate interests. Vance's nomination suggests a continuation of this strategy, repackaged for the post-Trump era.
While the Republicans court the white working class through figures like Vance, the Democratic Party has long engaged in its own form of identity politics, particularly focused on racial and ethnic minorities. The selection of Kamala Harris as Joe Biden's running mate in 2020 exemplifies this approach.
Harris, as the first woman of African-American and Asian descent to serve as vice president, undoubtedly brings important representation to the executive branch. Her nomination was deservedly celebrated as a historic milestone, particularly for Black and South Asian Americans. However, much like Vance, Harris' personal identity and the symbolism of her position often overshadow the substance of her political record.
The narrative surrounding Harris' candidacy has largely centered on what she represents demographically, rather than critically examining her track record, policy proposals, or how she might address the pressing issues facing the nation.
Throughout her career as a prosecutor and later as California's attorney general, Harris often took stances that were at odds with the criminal justice reform movement that has become central to many progressive platforms. Her "smart on crime" policies and past resistance to independent investigations of police shootings contrast with calls for police reform and racial justice that have gained prominence in recent years.
This critique of Kamala Harris is not meant to single her out or suggest a monolithic view on crime among Black voters. Rather, the point is to highlight a broader pattern of symbolic representation with limited substantial policy change. Indeed, the Biden administration has fallen far short on its promises to address disproportionate levels of Black unemployment, the plight of Black farmers, and the need for far-reaching criminal justice reform.
Since President Biden's unexpected withdrawal from the 2024 presidential race, the phenomenon of performative representation has been thrown into stark relief with Vice President Kamala Harris emerging as the presumptive Democratic nominee. Media coverage has overwhelmingly fixated on Harris' identity as a woman of Jamaican and Indian heritage, often at the expense of substantive policy discussions. Pundits and commentators repeatedly emphasize her racial background and historic potential to be the first female president, while giving comparatively little attention to her actual policy platform or vision for the country.
This focus on identity over substance exemplifies the troubling trend in American politics where symbolic representation often overshadows meaningful policy debates. The narrative surrounding Harris' candidacy has largely centered on what she represents demographically, rather than critically examining her track record, policy proposals, or how she might address the pressing issues facing the nation. This imbalance in coverage risks further entrenching a political culture that prioritizes optics over genuine progress.
This underscores a systemic problem wherein political gestures often substitute for meaningful reform, leaving many of the underlying issues unaddressed and communities still grappling with longstanding injustices. The growing potential of a Harris to be the presumptive Democratic nominee for present, while breaking important barriers, also reveals the limitations of representation without corresponding policy shifts. Her presence in the administration often served as a shield against criticism, with her identity being invoked to deflect concerns about the administration's failure to enact far-reaching changes.
The nomination of JD Vance as Trump's running mate, much like the selection of Kamala Harris as Biden's VP and now likely presidential nominee, represents a troubling trend in American politics. It reflects a system where the appearance of representation often substitutes for meaningful transformation, where identity is weaponized to maintain existing power structures rather than challenge them.
This allows political parties, far too often, to avoid grappling with difficult structural issues. By focusing on representation at the top levels of government, parties can sidestep the harder work of addressing systemic inequalities or economic challenges. The result is a politics of gestures rather than genuine action.
While increasing representation and challenging the traditional white rich male dominance over U.S. politics is urgent and necessary, it is far from enough. Real progress requires policies that address the root causes of inequality and injustice, not just gestures towards inclusivity. Ultimately, revitalizing American democracy will require embracing a politics of substance over symbolism. Advances in political representation must be coupled with a genuine commitment to addressing the deeper needs and concerns of all Americans. Only then can we move beyond the politics of performance and toward a more responsive and effective system of governance that can legitimately address the nation's deeper problems.
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today! |
In a move that surprised few but disappointed many, former U.S. President Donald Trump has chosen JD Vance, the bestselling author of Hillbilly Elegy and junior senator from Ohio, as his potential running mate for the 2024 presidential election. This choice, while generating the expected media buzz, represents far more than just another calculated political maneuver. It embodies a troubling trend in American politics: the weaponization of identity politics by both major parties to create a veneer of representation while sidestepping substantive policy changes.
Vance's nomination is a clear play for the rural working-class vote, a demographic that has become increasingly crucial to Republican electoral success. His personal narrative—rising from an impoverished Appalachian-adjacent background to Yale Law School and eventual political office—is meant to resonate with voters who feel left behind and "forgotten" by globalization and technological change. In this way, the GOP is attempting its own version of identity politics, one focused not on racial or ethnic minorities, but on the white working class that forms much of its base.
This strategy mirrors long-standing Democratic efforts to court historically marginalized communities through high-profile appointments and symbolic gestures. Both parties now engage in a kind of political theater, where the appearance of representation often substitutes for meaningful policy reforms. It's a game where faces change, but the underlying power structures too often remain frustratingly the same.
JD Vance's meteoric rise from obscure memoirist to potential vice presidential nominee encapsulates the GOP's attempted pivot towards a more worker-friendly image. His critiques of coastal elites and championing of Rust Belt revival have positioned him as a voice for the disaffected working class. Yet, a closer examination reveals a stark disconnect between Vance's rhetoric and his actual policy positions.
While Vance speaks passionately about the struggles of working-class Americans, his actual views and voting record in the Senate has consistently aligned with traditional Republican pro-business stances. He has voiced support for tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the wealthy and policies directly threatening the power of unions. Indeed behind his "pro-worker" stance appears to be a xenophobic nationalism centred on the mass deportation of immigrants.
The selection of Vance represents an attempt by the Republican establishment to co-opt the language of economic populism without embracing its substance.
The rise of figures like JD Vance reflects a new conservative policy agenda championed by groups such as American Compass, which seeks to blend traditional conservative values with populist economic nationalism. This approach advocates for policies like family-friendly labor laws and restrictions on global trade, supposedly representing a new "Trumpian version of the GOP, the one that threw away the country club, Chamber of Commerce, free trade, and foreign wars."
However, beneath this worker-friendly veneer lies a fundamentally corporate-aligned ideology. While paying lip service to workers' concerns, this brand of "national conservatism" often stops short of embracing true economic democracy or structural reforms that would significantly shift power to workers. Instead, it offers a limited, top-down version of economic populism that ultimately preserves corporate interests and existing power structures.
This contradiction lays bare the hollowness of the GOP's newfound "populist" messaging. It is a Party that invites the head of the Teamsters to speak at its convention while doing all it can to undermine unions and actual worker power. The selection of Vance represents an attempt by the Republican establishment to co-opt the language of economic populism without embracing its substance. By elevating a figure who can speak convincingly about working-class struggles, the party hopes to maintain its grip on a crucial voting bloc while continuing to advance policies that often work against their economic interests.
This approach is not without precedent. The Tea Party movement of the early 2010s similarly channeled working-class anger into support for policies that ultimately benefited the wealthy and corporate interests. Vance's nomination suggests a continuation of this strategy, repackaged for the post-Trump era.
While the Republicans court the white working class through figures like Vance, the Democratic Party has long engaged in its own form of identity politics, particularly focused on racial and ethnic minorities. The selection of Kamala Harris as Joe Biden's running mate in 2020 exemplifies this approach.
Harris, as the first woman of African-American and Asian descent to serve as vice president, undoubtedly brings important representation to the executive branch. Her nomination was deservedly celebrated as a historic milestone, particularly for Black and South Asian Americans. However, much like Vance, Harris' personal identity and the symbolism of her position often overshadow the substance of her political record.
The narrative surrounding Harris' candidacy has largely centered on what she represents demographically, rather than critically examining her track record, policy proposals, or how she might address the pressing issues facing the nation.
Throughout her career as a prosecutor and later as California's attorney general, Harris often took stances that were at odds with the criminal justice reform movement that has become central to many progressive platforms. Her "smart on crime" policies and past resistance to independent investigations of police shootings contrast with calls for police reform and racial justice that have gained prominence in recent years.
This critique of Kamala Harris is not meant to single her out or suggest a monolithic view on crime among Black voters. Rather, the point is to highlight a broader pattern of symbolic representation with limited substantial policy change. Indeed, the Biden administration has fallen far short on its promises to address disproportionate levels of Black unemployment, the plight of Black farmers, and the need for far-reaching criminal justice reform.
Since President Biden's unexpected withdrawal from the 2024 presidential race, the phenomenon of performative representation has been thrown into stark relief with Vice President Kamala Harris emerging as the presumptive Democratic nominee. Media coverage has overwhelmingly fixated on Harris' identity as a woman of Jamaican and Indian heritage, often at the expense of substantive policy discussions. Pundits and commentators repeatedly emphasize her racial background and historic potential to be the first female president, while giving comparatively little attention to her actual policy platform or vision for the country.
This focus on identity over substance exemplifies the troubling trend in American politics where symbolic representation often overshadows meaningful policy debates. The narrative surrounding Harris' candidacy has largely centered on what she represents demographically, rather than critically examining her track record, policy proposals, or how she might address the pressing issues facing the nation. This imbalance in coverage risks further entrenching a political culture that prioritizes optics over genuine progress.
This underscores a systemic problem wherein political gestures often substitute for meaningful reform, leaving many of the underlying issues unaddressed and communities still grappling with longstanding injustices. The growing potential of a Harris to be the presumptive Democratic nominee for present, while breaking important barriers, also reveals the limitations of representation without corresponding policy shifts. Her presence in the administration often served as a shield against criticism, with her identity being invoked to deflect concerns about the administration's failure to enact far-reaching changes.
The nomination of JD Vance as Trump's running mate, much like the selection of Kamala Harris as Biden's VP and now likely presidential nominee, represents a troubling trend in American politics. It reflects a system where the appearance of representation often substitutes for meaningful transformation, where identity is weaponized to maintain existing power structures rather than challenge them.
This allows political parties, far too often, to avoid grappling with difficult structural issues. By focusing on representation at the top levels of government, parties can sidestep the harder work of addressing systemic inequalities or economic challenges. The result is a politics of gestures rather than genuine action.
While increasing representation and challenging the traditional white rich male dominance over U.S. politics is urgent and necessary, it is far from enough. Real progress requires policies that address the root causes of inequality and injustice, not just gestures towards inclusivity. Ultimately, revitalizing American democracy will require embracing a politics of substance over symbolism. Advances in political representation must be coupled with a genuine commitment to addressing the deeper needs and concerns of all Americans. Only then can we move beyond the politics of performance and toward a more responsive and effective system of governance that can legitimately address the nation's deeper problems.
In a move that surprised few but disappointed many, former U.S. President Donald Trump has chosen JD Vance, the bestselling author of Hillbilly Elegy and junior senator from Ohio, as his potential running mate for the 2024 presidential election. This choice, while generating the expected media buzz, represents far more than just another calculated political maneuver. It embodies a troubling trend in American politics: the weaponization of identity politics by both major parties to create a veneer of representation while sidestepping substantive policy changes.
Vance's nomination is a clear play for the rural working-class vote, a demographic that has become increasingly crucial to Republican electoral success. His personal narrative—rising from an impoverished Appalachian-adjacent background to Yale Law School and eventual political office—is meant to resonate with voters who feel left behind and "forgotten" by globalization and technological change. In this way, the GOP is attempting its own version of identity politics, one focused not on racial or ethnic minorities, but on the white working class that forms much of its base.
This strategy mirrors long-standing Democratic efforts to court historically marginalized communities through high-profile appointments and symbolic gestures. Both parties now engage in a kind of political theater, where the appearance of representation often substitutes for meaningful policy reforms. It's a game where faces change, but the underlying power structures too often remain frustratingly the same.
JD Vance's meteoric rise from obscure memoirist to potential vice presidential nominee encapsulates the GOP's attempted pivot towards a more worker-friendly image. His critiques of coastal elites and championing of Rust Belt revival have positioned him as a voice for the disaffected working class. Yet, a closer examination reveals a stark disconnect between Vance's rhetoric and his actual policy positions.
While Vance speaks passionately about the struggles of working-class Americans, his actual views and voting record in the Senate has consistently aligned with traditional Republican pro-business stances. He has voiced support for tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the wealthy and policies directly threatening the power of unions. Indeed behind his "pro-worker" stance appears to be a xenophobic nationalism centred on the mass deportation of immigrants.
The selection of Vance represents an attempt by the Republican establishment to co-opt the language of economic populism without embracing its substance.
The rise of figures like JD Vance reflects a new conservative policy agenda championed by groups such as American Compass, which seeks to blend traditional conservative values with populist economic nationalism. This approach advocates for policies like family-friendly labor laws and restrictions on global trade, supposedly representing a new "Trumpian version of the GOP, the one that threw away the country club, Chamber of Commerce, free trade, and foreign wars."
However, beneath this worker-friendly veneer lies a fundamentally corporate-aligned ideology. While paying lip service to workers' concerns, this brand of "national conservatism" often stops short of embracing true economic democracy or structural reforms that would significantly shift power to workers. Instead, it offers a limited, top-down version of economic populism that ultimately preserves corporate interests and existing power structures.
This contradiction lays bare the hollowness of the GOP's newfound "populist" messaging. It is a Party that invites the head of the Teamsters to speak at its convention while doing all it can to undermine unions and actual worker power. The selection of Vance represents an attempt by the Republican establishment to co-opt the language of economic populism without embracing its substance. By elevating a figure who can speak convincingly about working-class struggles, the party hopes to maintain its grip on a crucial voting bloc while continuing to advance policies that often work against their economic interests.
This approach is not without precedent. The Tea Party movement of the early 2010s similarly channeled working-class anger into support for policies that ultimately benefited the wealthy and corporate interests. Vance's nomination suggests a continuation of this strategy, repackaged for the post-Trump era.
While the Republicans court the white working class through figures like Vance, the Democratic Party has long engaged in its own form of identity politics, particularly focused on racial and ethnic minorities. The selection of Kamala Harris as Joe Biden's running mate in 2020 exemplifies this approach.
Harris, as the first woman of African-American and Asian descent to serve as vice president, undoubtedly brings important representation to the executive branch. Her nomination was deservedly celebrated as a historic milestone, particularly for Black and South Asian Americans. However, much like Vance, Harris' personal identity and the symbolism of her position often overshadow the substance of her political record.
The narrative surrounding Harris' candidacy has largely centered on what she represents demographically, rather than critically examining her track record, policy proposals, or how she might address the pressing issues facing the nation.
Throughout her career as a prosecutor and later as California's attorney general, Harris often took stances that were at odds with the criminal justice reform movement that has become central to many progressive platforms. Her "smart on crime" policies and past resistance to independent investigations of police shootings contrast with calls for police reform and racial justice that have gained prominence in recent years.
This critique of Kamala Harris is not meant to single her out or suggest a monolithic view on crime among Black voters. Rather, the point is to highlight a broader pattern of symbolic representation with limited substantial policy change. Indeed, the Biden administration has fallen far short on its promises to address disproportionate levels of Black unemployment, the plight of Black farmers, and the need for far-reaching criminal justice reform.
Since President Biden's unexpected withdrawal from the 2024 presidential race, the phenomenon of performative representation has been thrown into stark relief with Vice President Kamala Harris emerging as the presumptive Democratic nominee. Media coverage has overwhelmingly fixated on Harris' identity as a woman of Jamaican and Indian heritage, often at the expense of substantive policy discussions. Pundits and commentators repeatedly emphasize her racial background and historic potential to be the first female president, while giving comparatively little attention to her actual policy platform or vision for the country.
This focus on identity over substance exemplifies the troubling trend in American politics where symbolic representation often overshadows meaningful policy debates. The narrative surrounding Harris' candidacy has largely centered on what she represents demographically, rather than critically examining her track record, policy proposals, or how she might address the pressing issues facing the nation. This imbalance in coverage risks further entrenching a political culture that prioritizes optics over genuine progress.
This underscores a systemic problem wherein political gestures often substitute for meaningful reform, leaving many of the underlying issues unaddressed and communities still grappling with longstanding injustices. The growing potential of a Harris to be the presumptive Democratic nominee for present, while breaking important barriers, also reveals the limitations of representation without corresponding policy shifts. Her presence in the administration often served as a shield against criticism, with her identity being invoked to deflect concerns about the administration's failure to enact far-reaching changes.
The nomination of JD Vance as Trump's running mate, much like the selection of Kamala Harris as Biden's VP and now likely presidential nominee, represents a troubling trend in American politics. It reflects a system where the appearance of representation often substitutes for meaningful transformation, where identity is weaponized to maintain existing power structures rather than challenge them.
This allows political parties, far too often, to avoid grappling with difficult structural issues. By focusing on representation at the top levels of government, parties can sidestep the harder work of addressing systemic inequalities or economic challenges. The result is a politics of gestures rather than genuine action.
While increasing representation and challenging the traditional white rich male dominance over U.S. politics is urgent and necessary, it is far from enough. Real progress requires policies that address the root causes of inequality and injustice, not just gestures towards inclusivity. Ultimately, revitalizing American democracy will require embracing a politics of substance over symbolism. Advances in political representation must be coupled with a genuine commitment to addressing the deeper needs and concerns of all Americans. Only then can we move beyond the politics of performance and toward a more responsive and effective system of governance that can legitimately address the nation's deeper problems.