JD Vance’s Radical Views Now Abandon America’s Founding Principles

Vice President JD Vance has emerged as a polarizing figure in American politics, with recent statements revealing a vision of citizenship that critics argue fundamentally departs from the egalitarian principles enshrined in the nation’s founding documents.

In a speech delivered at the Claremont Institute, Vance articulated a view of American identity rooted in heritage and ancestry, rejecting the idea that the United States is defined by universal ideals like those in the Declaration of Independence.

This stance, coupled with his role as a vocal defender of the Trump administration’s policies, has sparked intense debate about whether Vance’s rhetoric undermines the core tenets of America’s founding.

In his Claremont Institute address, Vance explicitly challenged the notion that America is a nation defined by its commitment to universal principles, such as those articulated in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”

He argued that defining America solely by agreement with these ideals is “way over-inclusive and under-inclusive at the same time,” suggesting that such a definition could include “hundreds of millions, maybe billions of foreign citizens” who share those values, while excluding Americans with deep ancestral ties who may not fully embrace them.

Vance’s alternative vision emphasizes a “blood and soil” conception of nationhood, where citizenship is tied to heritage and generational ties to the land.

He pointed to his family’s cemetery plot in eastern Kentucky, noting that it contains “seven generations of people who have fought for this country” and suggesting that such lineage grants a stronger claim to American identity than abstract agreement with founding principles.

This rhetoric echoes historical arguments that prioritize ethnic or cultural homogeneity over universal ideals, a stance that critics argue revives divisive ideologies reminiscent of the 19th-century Dred Scott decision, which denied citizenship to Black Americans based on the founders’ supposed intent.

A Contrast with Lincoln and the Founding Ideals

Vance’s views stand in stark contrast to the interpretation of American identity championed by Abraham Lincoln, who redefined the nation during the Civil War as a “new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”

In a 1858 Chicago speech, Lincoln argued that immigrants and others without direct ancestral ties to the founders could claim American identity through their belief in the Declaration’s principles, which he described as the “electric cord” linking “patriotic and liberty-loving men” across generations.

Vance’s dismissal of this “creedal nation” concept directly challenges Lincoln’s vision, which sought to unify the nation around universal human equality rather than bloodlines.

Critics, including New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie, argue that Vance’s rhetoric mirrors the logic of Chief Justice Roger Taney’s Dred Scott ruling, which asserted that the founders never intended for non-white individuals to be citizens.

By suggesting that ancestral ties confer a greater claim to American identity, Vance’s framework risks creating a hierarchy of citizenship that undermines the inclusive ideals of the Declaration and the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law.

Vance’s Role in the Trump Administration

Vance’s ideological shift aligns with his evolving role in the Trump administration, where he has transitioned from a peripheral figure to a vocal defender of its most controversial policies.

While Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller oversees mass deportation efforts and Russell Vought leads initiatives to reshape the federal bureaucracy, Vance has taken on the role of a public advocate, crafting sophisticated arguments to justify the administration’s actions.

His recent defenses of policies like ending birthright citizenship and expanding immigration enforcement reflect his belief in a narrower definition of American identity, one that prioritizes long-standing residents over newcomers.

For instance, Vance has criticized policies that grant benefits to undocumented immigrants, arguing that they “cheapen the very meaning of citizenship.”

He has also attacked figures like New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani for describing America as “beautiful, contradictory, unfinished,” accusing them of ingratitude and questioning their loyalty.

Such remarks reinforce Vance’s view that American identity is tied to a specific cultural and historical heritage, rather than a shared commitment to democratic ideals.

Vance’s rhetoric is deeply influenced by the “New Right,” a movement of conservative intellectuals who reject liberalism’s emphasis on individualism and universalism.

Thinkers like Patrick Deneen, whose book Why Liberalism Failed critiques the erosion of communal bonds, have shaped Vance’s worldview.

The Claremont Institute, where Vance delivered his speech, advocates a return to what it sees as America’s original principles but often aligns with nationalist policies that critics argue deviate from the founders’ universalist ideals.

Vance’s ties to these circles reflect his shift from the Never-Trump conservatism of his Hillbilly Elegy days to a more radical, populist-nationalist stance.

This evolution has raised questions about Vance’s motives.

Some, like journalist George Packer, argue that Vance has abandoned the values of his Appalachian roots for political ambition, using his background to justify divisive policies.

Others, including conservative commentator Tucker Carlson, see Vance’s transformation as a sincere alignment with Trump’s vision of prioritizing national sovereignty and cultural cohesion over globalist ideals.

• Trending: Trump’s Epstein Connection May Now Bring His Political Downfall
• Trending: Alex Jones Now Accuses Trump of Plotting with Maxwell
• Trending: Another Washington Figure Now Claims Trump is in Epstein’s List
• Trending: MAGA Now Scrutinize Trump Over Epstein Client List Failure

What Will Be of America’s Future?

Vance’s vision of a tiered citizenship, where heritage and loyalty to the administration’s agenda determine one’s place in the nation, has alarmed scholars, historians, and the general population with users on X referring to Vance’s beliefs as ‘Nazi-like’.

Joshua Howard, a Ph.D. student at Emory University, notes that Vance’s rhetoric draws on historical tropes used to vilify welfare recipients and immigrants, often with racial undertones.

By invoking the sacrifices of Civil War soldiers while dismissing the inclusive principles they fought for, Vance risks alienating those who see America’s strength in its diversity and commitment to equality.

As the Trump administration pushes forward with policies like mass deportation and challenges to birthright citizenship, Vance’s role as a rhetorical defender will likely grow.

His rejection of the Declaration’s universalism in favor of a heritage-based nationalism signals a broader shift in the Republican Party, one that critics argue threatens the very principles that have defined America since its founding.

Whether this vision will resonate with voters or further polarize the nation remains to be seen, but it undeniably marks a departure from the inclusive ideals that Lincoln and the founders championed.

Also Read: MAGA Now Scrutinize Trump Over Epstein Client List Failure

Visit the Homepage for our extensive library of news, or read news for you below.

Join us on Facebook and X.

---

News You Might Like

---

About The Author