The Problem with Kicking Trump out of Office

These days I hear lots of folks wanting to kick Donald Trump out of office. Despite the toadies in the Senate who would never vote against The Orange One, rumblings about impeachment or removal from office using the 25^th Amendment continue.

As they say in Brooklyn, “Fawgedaboudit!”

Thanks (most recently) to Trump’s profanity-laced post on Easter Sunday, an increasingly bipartisan group is agreeing that he’s lost what little of his mind was left and it’s time to get his finger off the nuclear button.  After all, when Bernie Sanders, J.B. Pritzker, Alex Jones, Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene all agree on something, it’s pretty obvious the world has been turned on its head.

But here’s the thing: invoking impeachment and/or the 25^th amendment to replace him would only act as a salve for a short time, as J.D. Vance is the next guy in line and I’d argue he’s even worse.

Please don’t misunderstand me. Trump is a train wreck who was never qualified to hold office in the first place. But before we go too far on this flight of fantasy, let’s take a serious look at a man whom we can all agree is Number 2.

If J. D. Vance were to become president of the United States, his administration would likely reflect a blend of economic populism, cultural conservatism, and skepticism toward traditional American foreign policy. Though his memoir Hillbilly Elegy explores the struggles of working-class communities in Appalachia and the American Midwest, he’s been tied into a lot of big-money interests, including billionaires Peter Thiel (co-founder of PayPal, Facebook), Marc Andreessen (Netscape), David Sacks (AI/crypto czar), and everyone’s favorite Texas chainsaw massacre, Elon Musk. He comes from a career in venture capital, and his profile as working-class is just clever branding.

A global overview Vance’s background has shaped a worldview that attempts to fuse populist rhetoric with policy ideas aimed at restructuring the modern Republican coalition.

Whereas Trump is only interested in lining his own pockets and follows the advice of whoever had his ear last, Vance is WAY smarter. He’s a mean, vicious little man, and knows EXACTLY what he’s doing. Some describe him as “Pure evil!”

Which is why we could probably expect a Vance presidency to emphasize economic nationalism more strongly than traditional Republican administrations have. For decades, much of the Republican Party embraced free-market globalization, low tariffs, and minimal government involvement in industrial policy. Vance has been sharply critical of that approach. He has argued that globalization hollowed out manufacturing communities across the Midwest and that American policymakers were too willing to prioritize corporate profits and international trade agreements over the economic stability of American workers.

As president, he would likely support policies designed to rebuild domestic manufacturing capacity, including tariffs on foreign imports, incentives for companies to manufacture in the United States, and strategic government support for key industries. Much of this thinking aligns with the “America First” economic philosophy associated with Donald Trump, but Vance has often tried to articulate it in a more systematic policy framework.

Immigration policy would also likely be central to a Vance presidency. Throughout his brief political career he has argued that immigration levels should be significantly reduced and that enforcement at the southern border should be strengthened. In practical terms, this could include further expanding border infrastructure, increasing the number of border enforcement personnel, tightening asylum standards, and applying greater pressure on state and local governments that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. Vance has framed immigration not only as a matter of economic competition but also as a cultural issue connected to national identity and social cohesion.

Meaning more of the same shit we’re seeing now, including the negative impacts on our economy and our international relationships.

We’ll drive away more allies On foreign policy, Vance has distinguished himself from many traditional Republican leaders by expressing skepticism about prolonged American involvement in overseas conflicts. It would be interesting to see how he’d parse our current levels of adventurism for the MAGA crowd – agreeing with Trump to keep them happy, or calling him an idiot for repeatedly getting us into these messes.

In particular, Vance has questioned the scale of U.S. financial and military assistance provided during the war between Ukraine and Russia. While he has not advocated complete isolationism, he has argued that the United States should focus more heavily on domestic economic renewal and strategic competition with China, rather than large-scale military commitments abroad. A Vance administration would therefore likely favor a more restrained foreign policy, emphasizing national security priorities closer to home while encouraging European allies to take greater responsibility for regional defense.

Given the current efforts to divest America from NATO (and the EU’s increasing self-reliance), Vance’s advancing to the Oval Office would probably be the final nail in the NATO coffin.

On the home front Domestically, Vance has aligned himself with the cultural priorities of the modern conservative movement and Christian nationalism. He has supported policies designed to strengthen families, including expanded child tax credits and other incentives aimed at encouraging higher birth rates. On social issues he has embraced positions consistent with the conservative legal landscape following the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which returned abortion regulation to the states. He would undoubtedly continue the quiet efforts against women’s rights and encourage the efforts at state levels to minimize voter initiatives that Republicans have bene losing nationwide.

A Vance presidency would probably also seek to challenge what he and many of his supporters describe as ideological bias in universities, large corporations, and major cultural institutions.

Beyond policy, Vance’s governing style would likely combine populist confrontation with intellectual argument. Unlike Trump, whose political persona is rooted heavily in personal charisma and media presence, Vance often frames his arguments through policy analysis and ideological critique. Supporters see him as someone attempting to transform the populist energy unleashed during the Trump era into a longer-term governing philosophy within the Republican Party, but without Trump’s charisma that’s arguably questionable… despite all the money he has backing him.

Indeed, even Trump with his charisma is having trouble holding the coalition together, as we’re seeing in yesterday’s elections in both MTG’s old district and Wisconsin.

And what would Vance do to reverse the dramatic rise in oil prices (and thus the cost of virtually every other product in the US marketplace)? How would he handle our increasingly unproductive alliance with Mr. Netanyahu, who – like Trump - is only interested in keeping himself out of jail. And do the Magattes really believe he’ll continue to pursue policies of revenge against Trump’s supposed enemies?

Vance can be expected to continue stoking working class feelings of being outcasts, even as he plays to wealthy donors who believe American politics should shift away from global economic integration toward national economic development and cultural conservatism.

This step back from the global stage, added to probable cuts to government agencies like the Department of Education, can only be expected to expand Chinese market presence, which will further minimize American influence and jobs.

Bottom line If Vance were to become president, he lacks the charisma and following to be much more than a caretaker. The coalition that elevated him would likely shape his governing priorities, and he’ll be a puppet to America’s oligarchs. His administration would probably attempt to reconcile two forces that are not always naturally aligned: populist distrust of corporate power and financial support from influential technology investors. How effectively those competing pressures could be balanced would be one of the defining challenges of a Vance presidency.

And no, we don’t yet know how much influence Mr. Putin will have on him. There are arguably no videos of him having a hooker pee on him (a la Trump), but who knows what naughty things he’s been doing lately to the sofa in his office.

In many ways, Vance represents a transitional figure in American politics. He is younger than many of the leaders who dominated the political landscape in the early twenty-first century, and he has attempted to articulate a vision that blends populist energy with a structured ideological program. Whether that program could translate into a coherent governing agenda remains an open question. What is clear, however, is that a Vance presidency would likely mark another phase in the ongoing transformation of the Republican Party—from the free-market conservatism that defined the late twentieth century toward a new form of nationalist populism shaped by the political upheavals of the Trump era.

So yes, let’s get Trump out of an office he doesn’t deserve. But as for his successor…well, don’t expect much.

Only 197 days until the mid-term election. See you at the ballot box!

Rob