Where this was said
JD Vance's Tone-Policing Disaster & the Ross Douthat Interview
At 59:00 · chapter starts 50:55
The hosts set up the Vance segment with the Maggie Haberman / Jonathan Swan book anecdote: at a White House dinner, Trump asked Rupert Murdoch to rate Rubio and Vance in front of both men. Murdoch called Rubio 'brilliant' and said Vance 'has the potential to be great,' which Vance tried to laugh off. [1] — Jon Favreau "JD Vance told Ross Douthat that criticism of the administration's unchristian tone is really just elites policing 'working-class communicat…" 57:20 Then the hosts turn to the more consequential Douthat interview clip, where Vance argued that calling out Trump's 'tone of aggressive uncharity' is just elites policing working-class communication. Jon Favreau's reaction is visceral: Vance sounds like a right-wing version of a woke academic, the Manhattan billionaire calling Americans 'human scum' is not a working-class communication style, and asking people not to be cruel to neighbors is not an elite preference — it's Christian charity, the very thing Vance constantly invokes. Pfeiffer digs deeper into the contradiction: Vance came from poverty and rose through Ivy League education, venture capital, and Hollywood production to become Vice President — the definition of elite ascent — and now plays the anti-elitist while embodying every elite institution he once scorned. The segment is sharp, funny, and cuts to something real about the performance of authenticity in MAGA politics.
JD Vance told Ross Douthat that criticism of the administration's unchristian tone is really just elites policing 'working-class communication.' Jon Favreau eviscerates the argument: the Manhattan billionaire president calling Americans 'human scum' isn't working-class speech, and telling someone not to be a dick to neighbors is not an elite preference.
On Usha Vance's YouTube series, JD Vance greeted his own wife with two fatherly pats on the knee, pulled his hand back, and then both of them sat staring at each other. Dan Pfeiffer's verdict: it looks like the first meeting between a man who's never been on a date and a mail-order bride. And they could have edited it.
