Common Ground Between a Marxist and a Trumpist

by Naome Dixon

Angela Davis, 2019 (Wiki Commons)

America is commonly said to be a highly politically polarised land; trumpist fanatics at one side and blue haired liberals on the other. However, after reading both Angela Davis’ autobiography and “The Hillbilly Elegy” by JD Vance, I have explored the idea that this may be a reductionist view of the American political landscape. Angela Davis is an academic Marxist, who primarily focuses her efforts of black liberation, but also the liberation of other marginalised groups, such as the working class. She has explored in depth the intersections between gender, race and class (notably in her book, “Women, race and class) and asserts that for true liberation, all factors must be taken into consideration. Conversely, JD Vance is a conservative Republican, who is now a Trumpist running for Senate in Ohio. Within his memoir, Vance portrayed the  marginalisation of his Appalachian, white and working class community, arguing that, “When we stop blaming Obama or Bush or faceless companies and ask ourselves what we can do to make things better”. These two political thinkers may divert on most issues, but middle ground can be found in how each individual was able to become successful. This happens to be the parental role in their education. 

Angela Davis grew up in a middle class family, within Birmingham, Alabama. Being in the south, the Ku Klux Klan actively disrupted( including bombing) the lives of the African American community. Her mother, being a teacher herself, greatly emphasised the role of education within Davis’ life and she went on to live with a white family in New York, to broaden her educational horizons. It was here, when she was first informed of the intellectual study of Marxism. Going on to become a scholar, Black revolutionary and member of the Communist party, Davis faced marginalisation not only due to her race, but also her Marxist political ideology. Notably, this happened while she was a professor at The University of California, where the school fired her after learning about her membership to the Communist party. Davis had a disdain for individualism, this can be seen by her critique of the autobiography median. She believed that a focus on the individual limited the political message and thus highlighted other political revolutionaries. 

J D Vance (Wiki Commons)

JD Vance, on the other hand, grew up in Middletown Ohio, but his family had Appalachian culture embedded into them. His family were largely blue collar workers, but a cycle of violence marked his family’s history. He details his mother’s battle with substance abuse (an epidemic that has rocked America) and how that had a fallout effect on his own childhood. The Vance family migrated to Middletown to profit from the businesses present in the aftermath of the Second World War, however by the time JD was growing up, industries were drying up. This was reflected in the minimal horizons of JD’s generation. While his father was absent, his mother filled this gap with a conveyor belt of step fathers, each not seeming to fill the gap his father left behind. JD was lucky, as his “Mawmaw” (grandmother) took him in and installed within him a work ethic and a drive to do better for himself. Thus he enlisted into the Marines and after he attended Yale law school. However, his family’s influence had still left an imprint on him as he felt a divide between him and his classmates due to their different cultural backgrounds. He lists the, “things I didn’t know when I got to Yale law school” where he explores the aspects of corporate or academic life which are culturally taught. These influences led him to argue that a change in culture should lead to greater horizons, as he argues there is only so much that the federal government can do. Instead, his community should take matters into their own hands, fostering a better environment for their children to grow up in. 

From these two backgrounds, it is clear that both Vance and Davis differ on key things such as identity and ideology. However, both do try to assert methods that the working class can utilise to lift themselves out of poverty. Vance explores a perhaps controversial method of “self-help” for the white working class, claiming that many “spent their way” into poverty. This idea perhaps echoes the Reagan era rhetoric used against the black working class, that much of the oppression they face is in fact “done to themselves”. Davis highlights how the black and white working class have both been systematically oppressed by capitalism, which is often held up by the government. Davis states that, “have a hard time accepting diversity as a synonym for justice. Diversity is a corporate strategy.” This idea is similar to the assertions made by Vance against identity politics, as he too believed that diversity was not bettering the conditions of his people. While their rationale for not supporting diversity differed, they shared the idea that diversity helped the corporations more than it did people. 

Moreover, Davis explores how the white and black working class have perhaps been pinned against each other, in order to minimise the chance of collectivisation. She notes how a white inmate, when she was incarnated in New York, was spewing racist rhetoric when in a schizophrenic state. However, instead of chastising the individual, she argues that the girl was a byproduct of the white supremacist culture. Interestingly, JD Vance, in 2016, compared Trump to opiates stating that he is an, “easy escape from the pain” arguing that much of Trump’s appeal is due to his image instead of what he actually will do to help communities such as Vance’s. This could connect to Davis’ assertion on racism within marginalised white communities, as it could act as a scapegoat, in which avoiding the deeper issue at play. However, currently Vance is running for Senator and has now denounced his old views on Trump, becoming a Trumpist himself. Vance himself is seeming to play into the outlandish Trump-esque persona, defending the claims of a fraudulent election and seemingly buying into the “East coast elite culture” which he once criticised. This ideological change distances Vance from Davis to a heightened extent. 

In conclusion, while there are clear divisions between a Trumpist (Vance) and a Marxist (Davis) the core issues seem to resonate with each other. 2016-era Vance recognised how politicians often appeal to a demographic not due to the policies they hold, but due to the image they present. Similarly, Davis also examines how certain attitudes can be utilised as an escapism, instead of tackling the deeper issue at hand. Moreover, both share the background of being able to move beyond their preordained position in life, due to the parental influence (or in Vance’s case his Mawmaw’s) on their education. While divisions in American politics are clearly rife, one can argue that it is reductionist to claim that the polarised America shares no common ground. 

  

References

Angela Davis’ Autobiography, Hillbilly Elegy by JD Vance, https://study.com/academy/lesson/angela-davis-biography-education.html https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/apr/03/an-autobiography-by-angela-y-davis-abolition-feminism-now-by-angela-y-davis-gina-dent-erica-r-meiners-beth-e-richie-review https://www.washingtonpost.com/magazine/2022/01/04/jd-vance-hillbilly-elegy-radicalization/ https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/dec/07/hillbilly-elegy-by-jd-vance-review