The Vance Contradiction: Performative Narratives and the Betrayal of Working Class America

J.D. Vance, author of the bestselling memoir “Hillbilly Elegy,” burst onto the national stage with his vivid portrayal of Appalachian poverty and resilience. His narrative resonated deeply with many Americans, offering a glimpse into the struggles of rural communities often overlooked in national discourse. Now, as the Republican vice presidential nominee, Vance’s story takes on new significance, demanding closer scrutiny of the gap between his personal narrative and political actions.

As an autistic adult and trans woman, I find this scrutiny particularly crucial. Vance’s rise to prominence comes at a time when marginalised communities, especially those in rural America, face mounting challenges. For autistic individuals, these challenges are particularly stark. Studies consistently show that autistic adults experience disproportionately high rates of poverty and unemployment. According to recent data, only about 22% of autistic adults are in paid employment, a figure that has remained stubbornly low for years.

Moreover, previous Republican administrations have often focused on removing people from government assistance programs without adequately addressing the underlying economic conditions that perpetuate poverty. This approach has been particularly detrimental to autistic individuals and other marginalised groups who often rely on these support systems to survive.

In this context, Vance’s narrative becomes not just a personal story, but a political tool. His memoir, whilst compelling, increasingly appears performative when juxtaposed against his political actions and work history. Rather than leveraging his platform to advocate for policies that could genuinely uplift rural America and its most vulnerable residents, Vance’s political career has aligned with corporate interests and conservative ideologies that often exacerbate the very issues he once chronicled.

This contradiction forms the crux of today’s article: how can we reconcile Vance’s poignant portrayal of rural struggle with political actions that seem to undermine the potential for real change in these communities?

Mao’s “On Contradiction”

To fully grasp the contradictions within J.D. Vance’s narrative and political stance, we turn to an unlikely source: Mao Zedong’s philosophical work “On Contradiction.” It’s worth noting the irony in using Mao’s concept to analyse a Republican politician, especially given the party’s general aversion to acknowledging the intellectual contributions of communist leaders. In fact, in some Republican-controlled states like Oklahoma and Florida, educators are effectively prohibited from mentioning texts by authors such as Marx or Mao, further highlighting the ideological divide we’re navigating.

Mao’s “On Contradiction” posits that contradictions are inherent in all things and processes. He argues that the unity and struggle of opposites drive development and change in society. This concept of contradiction isn’t about logical inconsistencies, but rather about the tension between opposing forces that coexist within a single entity or system.

In Mao’s view, these contradictions are not static; they are in constant flux, with different aspects becoming dominant or receding based on changing conditions. This dynamic interplay of contradictions, Mao argues, is the engine of social change and progress.

Applying this lens to Vance’s story reveals deep-seated contradictions. On one hand, we have Vance the memoirist, vividly portraying the struggles of rural Appalachia and seemingly advocating for understanding and support for these communities. On the other, we see Vance the politician, aligning with policies that often exacerbate the very issues he once chronicled.

This contradiction isn’t merely a personal inconsistency; it reflects broader societal tensions. The struggle between rural and urban interests, between working-class needs and corporate priorities, and between personal narrative and political action are all embodied in Vance’s trajectory.

Moreover, this contradictory stance highlights inconsistencies within our societal structures. We glorify stories of individuals overcoming adversity whilst simultaneously supporting policies that make such overcome increasingly difficult. We celebrate rural “values” whilst economically undermining rural communities.

For marginalised groups like autistic individuals or the LGBTQIA+ community, these contradictions are particularly stark. Society often pays lip service to inclusion and support whilst maintaining structures that perpetuate exclusion and hardship.

By recognising these contradictions, we can begin to understand the complex forces at play in our political and social landscape. More importantly, acknowledging these tensions can drive us towards meaningful change. Just as Mao argued that contradictions drive societal progress, recognising and addressing the contradictions in Vance’s narrative and the broader political discourse could potentially catalyse more authentic and effective approaches to addressing rural poverty and supporting marginalised communities.

Vance’s Personal Narrative vs. Political Actions

In the dialectical analysis of J.D. Vance’s trajectory, we observe a stark contradiction between his personal narrative and his political praxis. “Hillbilly Elegy” presents itself as a proletarian bildungsroman, chronicling the struggles of the rural working class against the forces of economic determinism. Vance positions himself as a product of this struggle, a voice emerging from the contradictions of rural American life.

However, the synthesis of Vance’s subsequent career choices reveals a profound ideological shift. His transformation from a chronicler of working-class hardship to a champion of bourgeois interests represents a negation of his original narrative. This negation is not a simple reversal but a complex interplay of opposing forces within the American political superstructure.

The performative aspect of Vance’s narrative becomes apparent when juxtaposed against his corporate alignment. His memoir serves as a form of cultural capital, leveraged to gain entry into the very power structures that perpetuate rural poverty. This commodification of working-class experience is a manifestation of the contradictions inherent in capitalist society, where even critique can be co-opted and transformed into a tool of the ruling class.

Vance’s political stance, aligned with Republican orthodoxy, further contradicts his origin story. His support for policies that often exacerbate rural poverty and marginalise vulnerable groups like autistic individuals reveals the tension between personal history and political expedience. This contradiction is not merely personal but reflects broader societal conflicts between rural and urban interests, working-class needs and corporate priorities.

In the final analysis, Vance’s journey embodies the complex interplay of opposing forces within American society. His narrative, once a tool for illuminating class struggle, has been dialectically transformed into an instrument of political power, revealing the profound contradictions at the heart of the American dream.

Rural America’s Continued Suffering

The narrative of rural America’s continued suffering stands in stark contrast to the success story J.D. Vance presents. Recent data paints a grim picture: rural poverty rates remain persistently higher than urban rates, with 16.1% of rural residents living in poverty compared to 12.6% in urban areas. Access to healthcare, education, and economic opportunities continues to lag behind urban centers.

For autistic individuals in rural areas, these challenges are magnified exponentially. As the founder of the Praeceptory at Towcester Abbey, a non-profit autism support organization established in 2015, I’ve witnessed firsthand the glaring lack of support for autistic people in rural communities. Our organisation was born out of necessity, filling a void where no services previously existed.

However, organizations like ours face an uphill battle for funding and recognition. The Autism CARES Act, which ostensibly aims to support autistic individuals, channels the bulk of its resources into corporate-led research focusing on “cures,” “prevention,” and “therapies.” This approach neglects the immediate needs of autistic adults struggling to navigate an increasingly challenging economic landscape.

The neoliberal austerity measures favored by Vance and his colleagues exacerbate these issues. Cuts to social services and safety net programs disproportionately affect rural communities and vulnerable populations like autistic individuals (e.g., the ending of the Affordable Connectivity Program). In our work at the Praeceptory, we’ve seen how lack of access to vocational training, supported employment opportunities, and affordable housing creates nearly insurmountable barriers for autistic adults seeking independence.

This reality stands in stark opposition to Vance’s political rhetoric. Whilst he claims to champion rural America, his support for policies that prioritise corporate interests over community needs continues to perpetuate the very struggles he once chronicled. The disconnect between Vance’s narrative and the lived experiences of rural autistic individuals underscores the performative nature of his advocacy.

The Missed Opportunity

J.D. Vance’s ascension to the Republican VP nomination represents a profound missed opportunity for genuine advocacy on behalf of rural and marginalised communities. Given his background and the platform afforded by “Hillbilly Elegy,” Vance was uniquely positioned to champion policies that could have meaningfully addressed the systemic issues plaguing rural America and its most vulnerable residents.

Instead, Vance has aligned himself with corporate interests and conservative ideologies that often exacerbate these issues. His early tenure as VP nominee has been marked by full-throated support for Trump’s presidency and current platform - a stance that bodes ill for disabled and LGBTQIA+ communities, who faced significant setbacks during Trump’s administration.

Vance could have advocated for expanded rural healthcare access, including mental health services crucial for autistic individuals. He might have pushed for increased funding for vocational training and supported employment programs in rural areas, addressing the staggeringly low employment rates among autistic adults. Policies supporting affordable housing and transportation in rural communities could have been centerpieces of his platform.

For the LGBTQIA+ community, Vance could have broken with party orthodoxy to support non-discrimination protections and access to gender-affirming care, particularly important in rural areas where such resources are scarce.

Instead, Vance has thrown his support behind policies that prioritise corporate tax cuts over social services, deregulation over environmental and worker protections, and a narrowly defined concept of “traditional values” over inclusivity and diversity. His backing of efforts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, despite its importance in expanding rural healthcare access, is particularly telling.

Moreover, Vance’s embrace of Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric ignores the vital role immigrants play in many rural economies, further undermining these communities’ stability.

This alignment with corporate and conservative interests not only fails to address the needs of rural and marginalised communities but actively works against them. It transforms Vance from a potential champion of the underserved into a stark example of how personal narrative can be coopted and weaponised in service of the very power structures that perpetuate rural poverty and marginalization.

In essence, Vance’s political trajectory represents not just a personal failing, but a broader betrayal of the communities he once claimed to represent.

Final thoughts …

The stark contradictions between J.D. Vance’s narrative in “Hillbilly Elegy” and his subsequent political actions reveal a troubling pattern of performative advocacy. Vance’s journey from chronicler of rural struggles to champion of corporate interests stands as a potent symbol of the wider disconnect between political rhetoric and meaningful action in addressing the needs of marginalized communities.

Whilst Vance chose to leverage his story for personal political gain, countless others from similar backgrounds have taken a different path. Consider the work of activists like Ash-Lee Woodard Henderson, co-executive director of the Highlander Research and Education Center, who has dedicated her life to grassroots organising and education in Appalachia. Or look to Sarah Smarsh, author of “Heartland,” who continues to advocate for rural communities through journalism and policy work. These individuals demonstrate that it’s possible to rise from humble beginnings and still maintain an authentic commitment to uplifting one’s community.

The contrast between Vance’s performative position and the genuine efforts of these community advocates is stark. Whilst Vance climbs the ranks of political power, aligning himself with policies that often harm the very communities he claims to represent, these authentic advocates work tirelessly at the grassroots level, effecting real change in the lives of rural Americans, including autistic individuals and other marginalised groups.

As we confront the challenges ahead, it’s imperative that we cultivate leaders capable of examining the profound contradictions within our society and courageous enough to advocate for drastic changes. We need individuals who can look beyond the superficial narratives of success and critically analyse the systemic issues plaguing America and marginalised communities, including autistic individuals.

These leaders must possess the intellectual rigor to understand complex socioeconomic dynamics and the moral fortitude to propose radical solutions. This means not just advocating for expanded healthcare access or increased funding for support services, but fundamentally questioning and reimagining the economic structures that perpetuate inequality and marginalization.

Vance's story serves as a stark reminder of the dangers of complacency and the seductive power of the status quo. If we fail to nurture leaders willing to challenge entrenched systems, we risk sliding further into a political landscape where even the mention of alternatives to neoliberal capitalism becomes taboo, as we’re seeing in states like Oklahoma and Florida.

Our future depends on our ability to foster a political discourse that doesn’t shy away from examining contradictions and proposing bold, systemic changes. Only by embracing this level of critical thinking and courageous advocacy can we hope to create a society that truly serves the needs of all its members, especially those in our most vulnerable communities. The path forward requires not just incremental adjustments, but a fundamental reimagining of our social and economic structures.