I’m writing this on the morning of J. D. Vance’s speech at the Republican convention, and I feel more hopeful and energized about presidential politics than at any point in my life.

I’ve been following politics intensely since 1968, and there have been some genuine high points—Daniel P. Moynihan’s squeeker win over Bella Abzug in the 1976 Democratic primary, Rudy Guiliani’s razor-thin victory over David Dinkins in 1993 and his amazing mayoralty.

But, on the presidential level: meh. I voted for Reagan without feeling great about it, and it was the same for George H. W. Bush. The euphoria I felt at Patrick Buchanan’s victory in the 1996 New Hampshire primary was short-lived. Obama beating McCain in 2008 was a relief, of course, but expected, and the drawbacks were obvious at the time.

Like many Buchananites, I have felt both vindication and frustration with Donald Trump. The former (and, I  hope, next) president is obviously a tremendously gifted politician. He’s funny and a terrific communicator with extraordinary reserves of energy. And whether from real conviction, a businessman’s instinct that this was an underserved market, or some combination of both, he essentially adopted Buchanan’s positions on trade, immigration, and foreign policy, which allowed him to rout a complacent and unwary Republican establishment. (I played golf recently with a man who was a principal of Jeb Bush’s super PAC. He related sheepishly to me how much they chuckled at Trump when he rode down the escalator). 

Unfortunately, there was little actual Buchananism in Trump’s first term. No wall at the Mexican border, or at least not much of one. Trump appointed the super interventionist neoconservative John Bolton, of all people, as national security advisor. Things could have been worse—Trump’s immigration record was infinitely better than the de facto open borders of the Biden administration. He actually avoided war with Iran, despite the urging of the hawks in his administration, and his foreign policy appointments improved in the second half of his term. But he accomplished little of a Trumpian agenda during his first two years, when he had the congressional majorities to get things done.

Ann Coulter captured the essence of Trump’s presidency well by calling Trump’s methods the “opposite of a duck.” Instead of quiet, steady progress produced by an invisible subsurface paddling, there was a great deal of thrashing about and little forward movement.

But Trump’s political gifts remained, and indeed seem even more impressive in the face of Democratic lawfare and an assassination attempt. God-given, perhaps. 

As the prospect of a second Trump term emerges, what would that look like? Most likely, there will be at least some improvement on the southern border and less likelihood of a civilization-destroying escalation with Russia over Ukraine. But the remaining GOP establishment could treat even a second Trump term as an aberration and Trump as a political black swan of no lasting consequence. The politicians who have opportunistically projected themselves as more Trumpian in the past few years would revert back to form after he’s gone. With no obvious successor, Trumpism, as an extension of Buchananism, a populist-oriented conservatism, would remain a faction in national politics but little more. 

J. D. Vance’s selection has changed all that. Trump—possibly influenced by his genuinely conservative son Don Jr. and by Tucker Carlson—made a bid to ensure that Trumpism would not only be about him. In choosing an ideological admirer as his veep, Trump has ensured that some variant of Trumpism would survive after his second term and that a profoundly intelligent junior senator would secure prominent place for it in the Republican Party during the generation to come. 

In the short run, what can we realistically hope for? 

First, that the choice of Vance makes it more likely Trump will move towards a peace settlement in Ukraine. Trump’s boisterous “Jacksonian” America Firstism always left some ambivalence about Ukraine. Trump had dissed NATO freeloading but never said much about the war. Vance’s much-repeated quote just after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 speaks volumes: “I gotta be honest with you, I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another.”

American foreign policy establishment “caring” about Ukraine—directly intervening in its domestic conflicts, dangling before the anti-Russian segment of Ukrainians the prize of NATO membership and the full-fledged military support that entails—has not brought Ukraine much good. How many Ukrainian men have been killed or maimed? Hundreds of thousands. 

It should have been obvious to everyone that Russia perceived NATO expansion into the former Soviet Union an existential threat, and that it was not going to allow Ukraine to be turned into a NATO base. And it was obvious to everyone, except for the existing foreign policy establishment and their favorite politicians, from George W. Bush, to Hillary Clinton, to Joe Biden. Many members of that aforesaid establishment now realize their error, as you can see in establishment foreign policy journals now belatedly pointing out that a Ukraine settlement would be in America’s interest. 

But you can’t expect such honesty from Biden, who has so much invested politically and emotionally in Zelensky and continued war. Trump’s selection of Vance signals unambiguously that Trump realizes fighting a proxy war on Russia’s border is not a good thing for America.

Second, that national populism will remain vital in the United States post-Trump. It will have a leader, anointed by the by the man who first won a presidential election using a national populist platform.

Third, that a Trump victory will be a shot in the arm for all the European parties of the nationalist populist right— Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, France’s Marine le Pen and Éric Zemmour, Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, Holland’s Geert Wilders, and Germany’s AfD. They have their differences, and some are clearly better than others. But they are all part of a patriotic West; they all realize that Western civilization risks being submerged in slow-motion Camp-of-the-Saints-style if they don’t do something about immigration. Most realize that war with Russia is a distraction from this urgent task. Furthermore, a Trump victory will buttress those elements of Europe’s traditional or establishment right increasingly leaning in a populist direction. 

Some final words about Vance: he has firm and well-thought-out restrictionist views on immigration. He doesn’t just oppose illegal immigration but also understands the need to change the legal immigration system. Yet is also married to a lovely daughter of Indian immigrants, and has a genuinely multicultural family. He is a walking refutation of the constantly broadcast progressive lie that concern about mass immigration signals bigotry and white supremacy. His thought and persona will do a lot to positively shape the coming immigration debate in the United States. One can’t predict the future, and political fortunes can change. But I see more to hope for in American politics than I have in a very long time.