JD Vance has been called many things by many people since he was announced as Donald Trump’s Vice Presidential running mate three months ago. He is conservative and Republican, yes, as well as a proponent of Trump’s “Make America Great Again” or MAGA philosophy. But another, less obvious term often comes up when Vance’s views and policy opinions are discussed—populist. This begs the questions: What is populism, is JD Vance truly a populist, and if so, what does this say about the future of the Republican party and American politics in general?

Populism as a political theory does not have a strict definition or set of regulations. There is no right way to be a populist, as determined by history. The term populist has been used globally on both sides of the political spectrum to describe different governmental actions since the late 1800s. For the sake of this argument, I will use Müeller’s definition from “What is Populism?”. He argues that populist leaders are generally nationalist, critical of (assumedly corrupt) elites, anti pluralist, and claiming to work in the interests of a united people. They attempt to stifle opposition and civil society, making them dangerous to democracy in Müeller’s view. In the US we tend to think of populism on the left, popularized by politicians like Bernie Sanders who are critical of government action. But populism can be just as easily achieved on the right side of the political spectrum, and this is how it is commonly experienced in Europe. While not as extreme as those in countries like Hungary, I argue here that JD Vance has fashioned himself into a right-wing populist because he positions himself as a man of the people who is outside of the existing establishment, anti-big government, pro-national unity, and working for the prosperity of one American public (although the entire public is not truly represented in this—a typical weak point of populism). In a post-Trump America, if young members of the MAGA ideology like Vance continue to rise to prominence and hold positions of power, we are likely to eventually see a populist government hold power and eventually fall, as all populist governments tend to do. On the other hand, if Vance’s populist rhetoric fails to take hold in the eyes of the American public, we are more likely to see a return to traditional and more moderate conservative values. 

Third wing populism, most common in Eastern Europe, has been characterized by heightened xenophobia and nationalism. Vance fits within this schema because, according to his VP acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, he is focused on putting America first, limiting immigration, and withdrawing from overseas entanglements. Vance is also becoming more and more anti pluralist: only some people are truly “the people” who get to be represented by Trump and Vance’s ideal American government (Müeller). There is little room for dissent or opposition. Vance has even stated that, had he been VP at the time, he would have done what Mike Pence refused to do and overturned the results of the 2020 presidential election. Suppressing people’s voices, particularly those in the minority, and refusing to concede within a fair electoral process exemplifies the authoritarian tendencies that can be commonly held by populists. 

Appearances are key for the populist ideology. Despite holding an Ivy League law degree and having a net worth of millions of dollars, JD Vance presents himself as a man of the people, focusing on his Appalachian roots and lower-middle class upbringing. This encourages a large percentage of the American population, especially the white religious middle class, to see themselves in Vance and thus agree with his ideas and policies. Vance is trying to dissociate his  public image from typical political elites, despite having the same privileges and power as the rest of them. Rhetorically, Vance situates himself as a “national conservative” who is focused on unifying the country around “American ideals”, a vague but typical tactic of populist leaders. 

Vance used similar, though less extreme, rhetorical strategies to be elected to the Senate representing Ohio in 2022. He focused on his youth and family life (described in his book) and identifying with the average Ohio voter, who cares about issues like the economy, immigration, and job security. However, the most influential aspect of his Senate campaign was not Vance’s personality, political charm, or any of his policy agenda, but the fact that Trump had endorsed Vance and attached his name to the campaign. Since his election, Vance has not sponsored or co-sponsored any legislation that has passed the Senate, proving that he is clearly focused on advancing his own political goals and power, not working in the true interests of the Ohio people (coming from an Ohioan). As the Republican VP candidate, he has no prior political wins to tout and give him standing in the eyes of the public. However, this may, paradoxically, be beneficial to Vance’s curated populist image. Populists want to be anti-establishment because it attracts voters who are dissatisfied with current or past government functioning. Vance sets himself apart from career politicians like Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy; this will resonate with voters who dislike their brand of conservatism or their policies and may even mobilize people to vote who typically wouldn’t because they feel none of the candidates represent their interests. 

As Bessen concludes from his studies in Latin America, populist discourse from executives and people in positions of power can have potentially negative effects on the future of democracy in a country. If Vance continues to rise to power and even potentially run for president in four or eight years, we could see this also come true in America. There is an affinity between populism in government and democratic backsliding because “individuals who feel well represented by the incumbent government are more likely to delegate extraordinary powers to the executive” (Bessen pg 11). A MAGA-backed government, run by Vance or another Trump ally, would likely continue to move further right, consolidate executive control, and erode the power of the people until they break apart from within or are overthrown by the will of the public, as is typical of populist regimes. 

Vance’s ideas and his wavering popularity could very well define the future of the Republican party in America, regardless of whether Trump wins or loses in 2024. He is attractive to the working class in general, and the Trump-Vance ticket has started garnering support from demographics that have traditionally held Democratic positions, like Black men, Hispanic voters, and young people. Vance is also putting real policy ideas into his politics, something Trump has been criticized for lacking. This was evidenced during Vance’s civil and educated debate with Democratic VP nominee Tim Walz last week. If these trends continue and the public support holds, it is very possible that Vance will lead the Republican party further and further into populist territory. What happens after that is unpredictable, but odds are it won’t bode well for American democratic ideals.