Skip to main content

Usha Vance is Just a Bit Conflicted

 

It continues to amaze me how many extremely smart, extremely well-educated people are engaged in trying to take this country down.

I marvel at the bent natures of people who are able to absorb lavish intellectual inputs, then use them for mephistophelian purposes.

Ted Cruz (Princeton, Harvard Law) comes immediately to mind. So does Josh Hawley (Stanford, Yale Law), Ron DiSantis (Yale, Harvard Law), Rand Paul (Baylor, Duke Medical), and Elise Stefanik (Harvard). John Neely Kennedy, the aw-shucks cornpone senator from Louisiana? He went to Vanderbilt and Oxford. The list goes on.

What they all have in common is that they’re Republican — no surprise there — and that they’ve all taken that expensive learning and rejected, as inconvenient, any components that pertain to truth, justice, or compassion.

These (mostly) white men constitute the elitest of the elite, yet they currently make their livings heaping scorn on “the elites,” and they do it with a straight face. Impervious to irony, they are fully engaged in bending reality to fit the nonsensical talking points they need to further gull their gullible base.

What sort of mental gymnastics do you have to perform? How do you convince yourself that what you know to be perfectly wrong is, on further review, perfectly right? And vice versa. How do you use all that brainpower to promote deceit and rationalize cruelty? And what sort of brainpower goes into signing on with an idiot like Donald Trump?

We can understand, if not excuse, Trump’s troglodyte base, people who were brought up stupid, ignorant, and mean. Critical thinking skills have no place in the MAGA cult, where under-education is a badge of honor.

But to have an advanced degree, to possess really good critical thinking skills, and yet still be seduced by the dark side is another order of weird.

Which brings us to the strange case of Usha Vance, wife of the besieged JD Vance (Ohio State, Yale Law). Arguably the most fascinating of the four spouses at the top of the presidential ticket, Usha is the super-brainy, hyper-ambitious product of Yale, Cambridge, Yale Law, several prestigious judicial clerkships, and a major corporate law firm.

Once a registered Democrat, she was once openly contemptuous of Trump and all he stood for. The daughter of Indian immigrants, she’s a practicing Hindu, making her the kind of person, in other words, any MAGA loon could hate. And yet, her husband is Trump’s running mate.

This is someone who brings new meaning to the word ‘conflicted.’

The visual alone is striking. A woman who is several shades darker than her husband wouldn’t even raise an eyebrow in any city in America. A woman of Indian descent would feel right at home in the Democratic Party — we’re running one for president, as it happens. But in today’s GOP — where white makes right, where Christianity is the only acceptable belief, and where ‘immigrant’ is four-letter word — Usha is a walking provocation.

This has not escaped the attention of bigoted imbeciles like Nick Fuentes, who is neither subtle nor unique in his disgust:

“Who is this guy, really? Do we really expect that the guy who has an Indian wife and named their kid Vivek is going to support white identity?”

This puts JD in the awkward, but not unexpected, position of defending his wife against a MAGA base that would just as soon burn her at the stake, while simultaneously tending to his own white identity.

Usha was, until her husband’s anointment three weeks ago, a successful corporate litigator at a top San Francisco law firm, known for its progressive policies. Munger, Tolles & Olson prides itself on its commitment to D.E.I. — diversity, equity, and inclusion — which sets MAGA’s hair on fire. Indeed, Munger markets itself to prospective clients — as well as to law school graduates it might want to hire — by touting its stellar “diversity numbers” as part of its sales pitch.

And while it’s true that she clerked for Brett Kavanagh and John Roberts before joining Munger, there is every reason to believe that she was unequivocal in her embrace of the Munger culture, an ethos that flies in the face of everything today’s Christo-fascist, white-supremacist Trump supporter stands for.

So when her husband glibly castigates “San Francisco liberals” like Kamala Harris and, incredibly, Tim Walz — who’d never set foot in the Bay Area in his life — the irony is almost surreal.

It’s not just that Usha was a high-powered San Francisco lawyer, it’s also that JD himself was a high-powered San Francisco venture capitalist, mentored and sponsored by Peter Thiel, the poster boy for deep pockets and shallow thinking.

While the GOP is desperate to find something, anything, they can use to throw shade on the incandescent Harris-Walz ticket, they must surely know that the San Francisco thing is not playing well, not even in Peoria.

Meanwhile, Usha is in a position at least as awkward as JD’s. While she’s plainly not happy in front of a camera, ducking the media is not an option. So she’s stuck defending the deranged drivel that regularly spews from her own husband’s mouth.

For someone with her smarts, this over-the-top hypocrisy can’t be easy to swallow, let alone defend. But there she was on Fox and CNN, dutifully side-stepping questions about childless cat ladies and the sex habits of sofas.

As for the couple’s past loathing of Trump — and JD’s famously strident condemnation of him — she now tells the world that she has “grown to understand Trump since then.” She doesn’t explain what she now understands.

But while she comes across as poised, articulate, and determined to stand by her man, she clearly has no taste for the crazy word salads that now define Republican discourse.

Okay, I get it. This is a seriously ambitious power couple. Any core principles they may once have held were checked at the door on that day, two years ago, when JD decided to run for the Senate as a Republican, the party where core principles go to die.

Still, you have to wonder about the pillow talk. Do they discuss, or even practice, the repertoire of lies, deflections, obfuscations, and disingenuous bullshit that pass for public policy in today’s GOP?

Do they hate themselves for it, or do they ride with it? Do they grudgingly tolerate the inside-out logic, or do they help create it? Does living with so many lies hurt their relationship, or make it more exciting?

It can’t be easy to lower yourself to Trump’s level. You need to keep a robust set of lies ready at all times. You need to hold beliefs that conflict with your own sense of right and wrong. You need to willingly submit to the depraved ambitions of a depraved party.

Is this where Usha Vance’s meticulously educated life has led her? Will she really be comfortable in a world of nonstop cognitive dissonance?

Or will Trump, being Trump, just use her up and throw her out? Stay tuned.

Comments

  1. Being a politician in America in 2024 means participating in a bloodsport. You don't get in unless you are prepared to hurt the other guys. The truth be damned, you say what you have to say to take them down.

    The American people are not the focus of the election process, they are the fans. They pick a home team and root for them just like a football team. When their team is bad, that doesn't stop them from being fans. Someday, they'll win again!

    Just like people don't go into football if they are afraid of getting a broken bone or two, politicians know that the truth must be cast aside when it's inconvenient.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Decents, Deplorables, and the Conditional Mood

  F or my next trick, I’d like to indulge in a linguistic conceit of sorts. I’d like to use the current political nightmare to speculate about a matter of grammar, of all things, that has long intrigued me: Namely, why do so many languages codify the conditional mood — also known as the conditional tense — in their grammar? Why do we use ‘should,’ ‘could,’ and especially ‘would,’ in so much of our speech? Why do we hedge our conversations this way? Why is it more acceptable to say “I would like a cup of coffee” than “Give me a cup of coffee.” Why is one deferential and the other pushy? Why has history passed down this polite form to multiple language groups, in such a similar way? Why is it bad form to use “I want” in a non-confrontational situation? And why does the MAGA crowd insist on such bad form? I have a speculative answer to these questions, but first let me cavalierly divide the world into two groups of people: Decents and Deplorables . Goods ...

Yet Another Mole in Need of Whacking

  I n a week when Israel attacked Iran, Trump invaded Los Angeles, four million Americans took to the streets, and a Minnesota legislator was assassinated, the news from the arcane world of digital advertising probably didn’t make it to your list of big concerns. By the time I’m done, it probably still won’t. But in this miasma of Trumpish distractions, it’s often hard to figure out what we’re being distracted from . It’s a constant game of whack-a-mole, and last week, we got the first inkling of yet another mole that will require whacking. Warning: This will take a while to explain, and might cause mild-to-severe boredom. Proceed at your own risk: As we’ve seen, the Trump gang has recently extorted large corporate law firms into defending its pet causes, an ongoing story still developing. Now, apparently, they are trying to do something similar with large advertising agencies. The immediate focus is on the approval, or not, of a major merger between two of...

Uncertainty is Ready for its Closeup

E very day, we learn a little more about the way the Trump junta operates. We might sum it up with the phrase “Shoot first, ask questions later,” but this is not entirely accurate. They do indeed shoot first, mostly with executive orders that are breathtaking in their over-reach, malicious intent, and criminal shortsightedness. But they don’t so much ask questions later, as they send stupid lawyers into court to defend stupefyingly illegal behavior. They tend to fail, but even in failure, the confusion they create works wonders for them. On what must be several dozen fronts since January, MAGA operatives looking to subvert the government have done so, first by launching whatever harebrained scheme they’ve come up with, then by watching for the fallout. The fallout could be in the form of a court ruling, or howls of protest from the victims, or even from Democrats calling them out. But the point is that they depend on that first launch to shake things up, to flo...