TIGERVILLEmango win, South Carolina: Unlike this year’s United States presidential debates, the vice-presidential debate between Republican JD Vance and Democrat Tim Walz was noteworthy for its calm, civil atmosphere and substantive policy discussion.

Vance, in particular, garnered attention for his discipline and adroitness in articulating Trump’s policies with greater clarity than Trump himself, laying out how the former US president will expand upon his first term's economic and foreign policies. His debate responses offer insights into the new strand of conservatism that has gained prominence within US politics and may continue to wield political influence in a post-Trump era.

When Trump entered national politics in 2015, he challenged the decades-long policy consensus within the Republican Party’s coalition since Ronald Regan’s presidency in the 80s. Specifically, Trump was critical of pro-free trade policies and pro-interventionist foreign policies traditionally favoured by the party’s establishment.

During Trump’s presidency, and even after his defeat in the 2020 election, those with similar ideological inclinations gained political prominence, contributing substantive policies behind Trump’s overarching “America First” slogan.

Related:Commentary: If Trump-Vance prevail in November, expect even more American isolationism Snap Insight: Trump lost the debate but there’s still eight weeks till election day THE NEW RIGHT

The Trump-aligned group has been described as the “national conservatives”, “conservative populists” or simply the “New Right”. Many espouse similar views to social conservatives on issues such as abortion, but they are more likely to prioritise immigration as a top social issue.

While sharing fiscal conservatives’ scepticism toward government regulations, many in the New Right are also critical of big businesses whom they blame for outsourcing American manufacturing jobs and censoring conservative viewpoints.

Finally, the New Right has been vocal in criticising US entrapment from upholding international institutions and involvement in overseas conflicts. Sometimes described as isolationists, their foreign policy may be better described as unilateralist, maintaining military supremacy for use in conflicts perceived as directly impacting US national security interests, such as the geostrategic competition with China.

JD VANCE ON THE DEBATE STAGE

On the debate stage, JD Vance articulated these emerging threads of policy outlooks, highlighting the ideological shifts taking place within the Republican Party.

Vance affirmed standard conservative positions on social issues such as abortion and gun control. Perhaps with political recognition that current US public opinion is receptive toward stricter immigration control, Vance was more assertive in advocating for policies such as restrictions on the job hiring of undocumented migrants and the deportation of those with criminal records.

While avoiding some of his unsubstantiated claims on immigrants (such as the the accusation that Haitian immigrants in Ohio had eaten residents' pets), Vance doubled down on his overarching message to voters that illegal immigration poses economic threats to American citizens on wages, housing and public resources.

Though foreign policy was little discussed in the debate, Vance’s speeches throughout the presidential campaign suggest he shares a similar view to Trump, advocating for a narrow, limited projection of US power and influence in global affairs.

Perhaps most notably, Vance has distinguished himself from some other Republican figures mentioned as potential successors to Trump, such as Ron DeSantis and Vivek Ramaswamy, by more explicitly vocalising the economic populist aspects of the New Right.

Denouncing globalisation for depriving working-class Americans of good jobs, wages and affordable energy, Vance backed government intervention policies such as trade protections, penalties on corporate outsourcing, and government support for child and family care, unlike the traditional pro-free-market platform of the Republican Party.

Criticising economists supportive of free trade as lacking “common sense”, Vance reiterated an increasingly prevalent view among Republicans, that a globalised market economy has benefited corporations but left behind many Americans in relative poverty.

Though critics deride Vance, a former venture capitalist in Silicon Valley who was once critical of Trump, for political opportunism in embracing Trump and economic populism, Vance has defended changes in his political views as result of reconnecting with his blue-collar upbringing and disillusionment with the socioeconomic consequences of neo-liberal policies he witnessed in his corporate career.

THE FUTURE OF THE GOP

As suburban, middle-class voters with college degrees trend away from Trump’s Republican Party, while rural and blue-collar voters move toward it, the balance within the Republican Party may shift toward the dominance of the New Right over other conservative factions.

Paradoxically, the endorsement of Kamala Harris by multiple high-profile former Republican policymakers such as Liz Cheney could indicate the declining influence of traditionally conservative factions within the GOP.

Related:Commentary: Kamala Harris’ VP pick in Walz is as ‘normal’ as Trump’s choice of Vance seems ‘weird’ Commentary: JD Vance wants to make Silicon Valley great again

The New Right’s policy proposals have faced conflicts with other conservative groups. The fiscal conservatives have opposed trade protectionism and expansion of entitlement programs, while the defence conservatives have advocated for continued US commitment to security alliances such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

During Trump’s first term, the resistance within the conservative coalition limited the Trump administration’s ability to fully deviate from the long-established policy consensus of the Republican Party’s coalition.

However, with polls showing that Trump enjoys over 90 percent of support among Republican voters, the GOP may have become, regardless of its internal policy disagreements, accepting of the role Trump and his political allies play in shaping the party’s agenda.  

Whether or not Trump wins this year’s presidential election, the new political coalition that has coalesced around his “America First” slogan will likely persist. Just as the Republican Party’s “Reagan Coalition” endured for decades after Reagan’s presidency, public figures such as JD Vance may play a crucial role in whether the “Trump Coalition” endures after Trump’s eventual departure from politics.

Through his debate performance that weaved a personal account of his working-class background with a more cerebral, even-tempered communication of Trump’s ideology, Vance likely gained points among Republicans, Trump supporters and Trump himself in his bid to be the party’s future standard bearer.

Would Vance and other leaders of New Right succeed in achieving substantive, long-enduring changes to US domestic and foreign policies? Or would its rejection by the US electorate trigger a different form of political realignment within the Republican Party and national politics?

Either political outcome could have a consequential impact on global affairs.

Jong Eun Lee is Assistant Professor of Political Science at North Greenville University.mango win

• mango win
• US
• Trump
• Vice
• Commentary