Rubio & Vance

Two Ways to Reach the White House

JD Vance: “For years we have been told everything we fund and support is in the name of our shared democratic values, everything from our Ukraine policy to digital censorship is billed as a defense of democracy, but when we see European courts cancelling elections and senior officials threatening to cancel others we ought to ask ourselves if we are holding ourselves to an appropriately high standard.. . . If you’re running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you, nor for that matter is there anything you can do for the American people.”

Marco Rubio: “We want allies who can defend themselves so that no adversary will ever be tempted to test our collective strength…. This is why we Americans may sometimes come off a little direct . . . The reason why, my friends, is because we care deeply.”

The federal angle

Not much divides JD Vance and Marco Rubio substantively speaking, but their styles separate them as they pursue their climbs to the Republican summit in 2028. Their recent European speeches delineate their respective courses. Vance scolds the European community for its dereliction of duty and violations of minority rights, while Rubio pleads with Europeans to strengthen their commitment to a common cause.

Identifying substantive differences between the Vice-President and the Secretary of State requires microscopic vision. Both affirm deportation of the undocumented, cheer the change of top leadership in Venezuela, insist Europe assume responsibility for its defense, back a dominant U. S. presence in Greenland, favor tariffs as a diplomatic weapon, express distaste for abuses in elite education, and adhere fully to the Trump Administration’s domestic agenda. Both enjoy stable marriages that personify strong commitments to family and faith.

But as Oscar Wilde astutely observed, “In matters of grave importance, style, not sincerity, is the vital thing,” The inner, hidden, secret beliefs of the two Republican leaders are unknown, but any political observer can detect their style.

Style is structured in part by the office each holds. Where one seems to stand is determined by where one sits. By tradition, it is the Vice-President who rips the opposition and champions the occupant of the Oval Office. Meanwhile, the Secretary of State is Diplomat-in-Chief, the one appointed to soften blows and consolidate friendships. When speaking to Europeans, Vance and Rubio can be understood as doing no more than what official positions required.

Stances taken toward elite universities are also dictated in part by place in government. Vance, the president’s spokesman, tells conservatives that “universities in our country are fundamentally corrupt and dedicated to deceit and lies, not to the truth.” Rubio remains mostly silent, but his actions hint a preference for a softer line. Under his direction, the Department of State rank-and-file hand passports to almost all those admitted to American universities. International student enrollment at U. S. universities declined by only 1 percent this academic year.

Office makes a difference, but deeper forces rooted in distinctive religious experiences are at work as well. Vance was an irregular church-going Protestant who flirted with atheism in his college years before he converted to Catholicism, while Rubio is a long-standing, broad-minded traditionalist who attends both Catholic and Protestant services.

Vance’s conversions go beyond the religious sphere. In society, he switched from upper- middle-class aspirant to working class spokesman: After attaining a prestigious Yale law degree, he rediscovered his “Hillbilly” roots in Appalachia. By contrast, Rubio quietly attended Santa Fe Community College before completing undergraduate and legal studies in Florida, then built his career from the ground up within the Florida Cuban community.

Both men were late to join the Trump bandwagon. Vance explains his change of heart from never-Trumpism to MAGA enthusiasm in this way: “I allowed myself to focus so much on the stylistic element of Trump that I completely ignored” the fact he “was offering something very different on foreign policy, on trade, on immigration.” Rubio’s switch requires no justification. As he was a candidate for president himself, he was hardly expected to endorse an opponent until he withdrew from the race.

The hills on which the two candidates march have distinctive contours. Rubio, if nominated, would constitute a formidable Republican nominee in the 2028 general election campaign. He has the heritage needed to solidify Republican in-roads in the Hispanic community, the international experience of a diplomat, and the standing, vetting, and knowhow of a former candidate for the presidency. But the outspoken Vance is rapidly emerging as the unstoppable MAGA favorite for the Republican party nomination. If the president abandons him, or the country abandons the president, Vance could slip from his dominant position within the party. As for the general election, his political style—too hasty, too critical, too passionate, too righteous—could complicate his final ascent to the summit.

Refusing to place a bet on either candidate. Trump recognizes the value of two candidates advancing up separate valleys. Each represents one aspect of the master commander now in office. Vance embodies the president’s crusading zeal, Rubio his realistic recognition of the limits of U. S.—and presidential--power.

When it comes to substantive policy, there is little to choose between the Republican all-stars. But style is informative—and vital.

­­­­­__________________________________________________________________

Paul E. Peterson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University and the Henry Lee Shattuck professor of government at Harvard University.