Opinion: Why did JD Vance change his mind about Trump? Here's a better question

Any interviewer who can steal a few minutes with vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance asks him the same question: "How do you explain the things you said about former President Donald Trump in 2016?"

At its core, the question is not about the former president, as much as he is the prism interviewers are most primed to ask it through, though not the best one. What they are really trying to ask is, "What happened between then and now and is this a political play or have you actually changed your mind?"

But the prism of Trump does not offer very direct access to the answer. Trump has never had a clear ideology and his views change by the day. How can you pin Vance down when your anchor point is a moving target? So many Republicans, who once cast aspersions at the former president, folded under pressure and reversed course that a path has been cut through the brush for all those willing to turn in their spine and dignity out of selfish political ambition. This exercise of self-degradation has become such a streamlined process that asking anyone why they changed their minds about Donald Trump has become boring and predictable.

So how to better ask the question?

In Vance’s book he referred to former Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels as "his political hero" and "the public figure he most admired." For those unfamiliar, while campaigning for governor, Daniels refused to run attack ads. He famously called for a truce on the social wars , for which he was subsequently boycotted at CPAC. Daniels made it a point throughout his career to be respectful toward and curious about those he disagreed with and conduct himself with character and decency.

Vance’s policy positions are now radically populist and in no way resemble the author of Hillbilly Elegy much less measured austerity of Indiana’s former governor, but it is not streamlining the DMV that makes someone your hero. It is their character, and Vance has departed just as drastically from Daniels in that respect. He has been spitefully crass since his rise to political prominence, prioritizing "lib owning" above policymaking, rejecting the civility of Daniels in favor of politics as a blood sport. His statements are commonly incendiary, frequently unsubstantiated, and seldom fitting of the dignity of a United States senator.

Thus, perhaps a better question is what made Vance admire Mitch Daniels in the first place, and if he still does. I do not imagine he will give a straight answer, but I do think it will be illuminating.

It is much easier to heap fawning praise on a weak man than it is to heap scorn on a great one. You can feign some abstract admiration for former President Trump by pointing to accomplishments that have little to do with the assertion of presidential power or referencing virtues he has never actually displayed, but it is much harder to cynically repudiate your hero out of pure craven political ambition. Especially when that hero has spent his entire career operating above the influence of such motivations. Surely, Vance once admired Daniels for the very unshakable nature with which he held his principles. How does one set his own aflame while pondering the noble character of the man he once admired most?

No doubt Vance can and will set them ablaze if asked the question, but I just want to see him do it. To see if he blinks or winces or if his eyes twitch as he disparages the character of a wise and decent statesman. To see how he squares such a circle.

To the question of, "Machiavellian political play or genuine change of opinion?" the answer is "yes." You cannot play with fire and not expect to get burnt, and you cannot feign prideful indignation without it corrupting your soul.

Perhaps Vance got sick of feeling like an eternal outsider, too self-conscious of his upbringing to feel comfortable in elite circles, and too self-conscious of his elite status to feel comfortable in blue-collar ones. The world is cold, and nuance does not cut the wind.

Or, maybe he was strut out for the elite of Silicon Valley and stared at like a zoo animal as he told them how the people left in emptied-out steel and coal towns were lazy and indignant one too many times that he became indignant himself. Or, perhaps he simply saw the populist strain running through American politics and thought he could catch it for his own selfish gain.

Whatever it was, he either got spiteful and angry at the world, or he acted like he did. In the end, it is all the same. Man cannot hold onto cynicism for very long and eventually, he becomes what he pretends to be.

Noticing a person is worthy of admiration is not very challenging; being one is. And so, in 2016, J.D. Vance could see that Mitch Daniels was a man worthy of admiration, but in the chaotic carnage of the political arena, he lost his grasp on character and principle and he surrendered to the hedonic seduction of populist rage. How does one tell that story in a light most favorable to himself? I would love to hear it.

Joe Palange is a native Ohioan, lives in Cleveland, and writes about politics and government.

This article originally appeared on Cincinnati Enquirer: Opinion: Why did JD Vance change his mind about Trump? Here's a better question