J. D. Vance and the Emerging Counter-Elite

How a second Trump administration could avoid some of the pitfalls of the first.

Former president Donald Trump’s selection of Ohio senator J. D. Vance as his running mate has generated much commentary. The mainstream media has tried to frame Vance as a postliberal “threat to democracy,” while Trump’s supporters have celebrated him as a bridge to a new generation.

But there is a deeper story here. The Vance selection is not a gambit to secure a particular demographic or region—white men are Trump’s base; Ohio is a safe red state—but an effort to cultivate an emerging counter-elite that could make the second Trump administration substantially more effective than the first.

This story is built into J. D. Vance’s biographical arc. He was the all-American kid who rose from humble beginnings to make his way in the world: the Marines; Yale Law; venture capital; a best-selling book. He learned the language of the prestige institutions, cultivated powerful patrons, and quickly climbed the ladder in academia, finance, and business. He had made it.

Then, his story takes a turn. Having entered the ranks of America’s elite, Vance became disillusioned and disenchanted with it, correctly identifying it as a force of hypocrisy and corruption. He defected—first, by parting ways with the respectable conservatism of the Beltway, and then by embracing Donald Trump.

Some have criticized this as a cynical move, but my sense is that it is the opposite. A cynic would have continued to build an elite résumé; Vance sacrificed his respectability within a certain stratum, assumed considerable risk by moving toward Trump, and, in my view, was genuinely convinced that the establishment, both Left and Right, had exhausted itself and had to be opposed.

Now, not only has Vance been selected as a vice-presidential nominee; more significantly, he has charted the path for an emerging new conservative counter-elite. 

The political balance is beginning to shift. A significant cohort of power brokers in Silicon Valley and on Wall Street have publicly moved toward Trump in this election cycle. Some of the names are familiar: Elon Musk, Marc Andreessen, David Sacks, Bill Ackman. But hundreds of other influential figures are assembling behind the scenes to support Trump’s campaign. Even some of Trump’s former adversaries, such as Mark Zuckerberg, have expressed cautious admiration for the former president.

Vance can now position himself at the center of this counter-elite. He has been in the boardrooms, made the pitches, and built the relationships. He speaks their language. They can do business together.

This could represent a sea-change. During the first Trump administration, especially following the death of George Floyd, institutional elites could neither express admiration for nor devote public support to Trump without paying a significant political price. Now the market has shifted, with a dissident elite moving along a similar path as Vance.

Signals in these institutions always flow from the top down. When the All-In podcast members host a fundraiser for Trump, they give permission to others in Silicon Valley to do the same. When Bill Ackman endorses Trump without negative repercussions, he gives permission to others on Wall Street to speak their minds.

If the Trump-Vance ticket wins in November, this counter-elite support could pay significant dividends for the Trump agenda.

In his first administration, Trump led through charismatic authority, trusting his intuitions and using the force of his personality to bend policy from the White House. There were successes but also limitations. Trump endured considerable staff turnover, often lacking the institutional buy-in that would enable him to implement his agenda effectively. This is not a problem that Democrats face; their institutional strength is immense. For a Republican president, however, a supportive counter-elite has become an essential precondition for success.

This is where Vance can help with Trump’s agenda. He can serve as a translator, turning Trump’s charismatic vision into a rational-legalistic formula. And he can lead the emerging right-wing counter-elite, so that Trump’s policies, which enjoy a significant base of support among the working and middle classes, can gain greater traction within elite institutions.

We should note the irony. Trump’s childhood was gilded, while Vance’s was troubled. And yet, Trump has a magnetic attachment to the masses—think of his archetypal Rust Belt voter—while Vance holds appeal to a sector of the elite. For this reason, Trump’s picking Vance makes sense. He saw not only someone who could help advance the agenda but also a younger heir who could bring it into the future. 

In this way, it is a more ambitious gesture than typical VP picks by either party, which are more commonly driven by a need for “balance” on a ticket. If Trump wins in November, and Vance is able to form a durable counter-elite, Trump’s selection of him could prove to be one of the most consequential vice presidential choices in modern history. 

This article was originally published in City Journal.