Distributism (JD Vance)

Stay Vigilant ^ | Jul 21, 2026 | Richard Excell

[ProgressingAmerica]

A Third Way

Much like Chesterton and Belloc posited and argued for a third way, a path that did not look like Monopoly Capitalism or State Socialism, we may be some arguing for this now.

I came across what I thought was a fascinating interview by Bishop Barron of Vice President JD Vance. I am a big fan of anything Bishop Barron puts out, not just because I agree with him, but because I find him to be one of the top intellectuals of our day. Listen to his debates, discussions and interviews. Watch the speech he gave at America’s 250th birthday. Suffice to say, the algo’s populate my feed with his content.

I did not know what to expect of the interview when I saw it. JD Vance has become a figure that is somewhat vilified on both the left and the right. The left sees him as Trump’s attack dog, lacking civility, and embodying the same brutal message. The right sees many of his comments, particularly where he said that maybe we need to move beyond the views of Milton Friedman, as an abandonment of core conservative ideology.

I encourage you to listen whether you like him or not. You will surely learn something. That is important since he is likely leading the ticket in 2028. You might want to know what you are (or aren’t) voting for.

---

TOPICS: Education
KEYWORDS: distributism; distributist; jd; jdvance; thirdway; vance

[Battlestar]

“I would have to take issue with the theory that JD Vance is the likely 2026 nominee. He’s not my idea of presidential material. It will not surprise me if he ends up declining to run.

Trump is obviously grooming Marco Rubio and with good reason.”

Agreed. JD is now a very well known commodity in the GOP leadership. And they don’t seem to like what they see. Past drug use, religious convictions that tend to lean toward more socialists thinking (which, in the end, is what distributionism is regardless of how they spin it), and muddled thinking on international issues. If JD had been elected in 2024, we wouldn’t be much past what Biden did. Little progress would have been made. Rubio would never have been picked as SoS and all the NGO grift and international interference in our systems would not be known and still chugging along.

Rubio is the obvious choice. He has been excellent. Perhaps the best SoS in our nation’s history. But still need to see how his findings work out over the next year.

As for Vance, he just isn’t presidential material. Maybe supreme court someday. But even then, would he be siding with the looser justices on any cases involving business? Possible.

[ChessExpert]

“Capitalism” is an attack word that leads people astray. “Free enterprise system” is more descriptive of both the ideal and the reality. As for monopolies, did Ford or GM keep their monopoly? IBM? Apple? Microsoft? Walmart?

“Distributism” sounds like feel-good mush to me. We need a better description to see if there is anything there.

I will probably get around to the enclosed video.

[catnipman]

weren’t Bush, McCain, and Romney “3rd way” squishes?

besides, this just looks like yet another attack on JD, which is the attack angle sent out by the DNC’s express blast this week to their lying leftist media allies as to how to attack MAGA this week ...

[ChessExpert]

I’m no more opposed to “widespread property ownership” than I am to income equality. Both sound nice, but how will you achieve them? Forcing either is counter-productive and wrong.

Perhaps people should get the message to learn (school), work, save, and invest. With the exception of inherited wealth, all the preceding elements are often required to retire with a small fortune. (Sometimes those who inherit a large fortune retire with a small fortune.)

You may have friends and relatives who fail in one or more of the above. For myself, it’s not my fault that relatives shun the stock market.

Let’s not encourage people to “invest” in state lottery or play gambling games on their smartphones.

[pierrem15]

That's actually one of the premises of the republic: a nation of freeholding farmers and "mechanics" as the 18th century term puts it.

The original "mass immigration" problem was the flood of European immigrants 1890-1920 who fundamentally changed the character of the Anglo-American republic.

It's possible to rebalance an industrial society but not through redistribution or laissez faire. Instead, the state must act to restrain the market to support the value of labor and incentivize capital investment to raise productivity. We did an amazing job of that 1945-75 and threw it away by embracing both excessive regulation and redistribution and "free trade."

The result is a middle class whipsawed by both capital and the government.

[Zionist Conspirator]

This is a very interesting and very important article, because it deals with the historical Right Wing in other than an American context. Left and Right began in Europe, and it did not refer to Hubert Humphrey and Barry Goldwater. As a matter of fact, Birch Society hero Frederic Bastiat was considered on the Left in his day!

Distributism is not the only right wing alternative to capitalism that arose. Another is the Social Credit movement started by British Major C.H. Douglas (important--this is NOT the same "social credit" system as that practiced in Communist China!).

I am afraid that for me economic speak is nothing but gobbledygook, so I can't tell you anything about it other than that it exists, but there are numerous online sources of information (Wikipedia being one).

The only problem is the association of these ideologies with anti-Semitism. Both Chesterton and Belloc were accused of these (I don't think Chesterton was, but Belloc is simply not a very sympathetic character). Major Douglas was an avowed anti-Semite who insisted the "new testament" was an improvement over the flawed "old testament" with the Jews (and not just theologically; I don't think he was speaking theologically whatsoever). However, he never advocated anti-Semitic policies that I am aware of.

There is much on the European Right that is bad, but it doesn't hurt to be open to some ideas that go into that territory.

[Liz]

Works great........”if the government mostly stays out of the way.”

---

Fat chance of that happening.

[ChessExpert]

Good post.

“We have that with the stock market - individuals own massive companies, taking part in their profit (and their loss)”

I remember that Democrats knew one thing for sure: It was a risky scheme to invest social security money in the stock market. G.W. Bush proposed it in 1978. The S&P 500 has gone up 28,000% since that time.

I suppose the re-distributionists would favor giving everyone (who never invested) a slice.

[ChessExpert]

“the state must act”

Yes, we’ve heard that ad nauseum.

[Languager]

For a lot of people on the right, “socialist” just means someone they disagree with, or don’t like, or who isn’t lock-stock in line with President Trump.

If they really don’t like the person then they’ll escalate to “communist”. It’s pretty embarrassing to see the words getting thrown around with so little understanding.

[dfwgator]

We did an amazing job of that 1945-75

---

Because WWII destroyed the rest of the industrial world, and we were the only ones left standing.

[dfwgator]

Just as Arthur Jensen put it in “Network”, over 50 years ago:

“We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable bylaws of business. The world is a business, Mr. Beale. It has been since man crawled out of the slime. And our children will live, Mr. Beale, to see that... perfect world... in which there’s no war or famine, oppression or brutality. One vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock. All necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused.”

[ek_hornbeck]

A lot of people assume that because the American conservative movement is associated with laissez-faire capitalism that any political ideology that deviates from libertarian economics is "left wing" - which is why some people here are accusing Vance of "leftist" beliefs for not marching to Milton Friedman's drums.

However, this simply isn't true in other societies and cultures, particularly in Europe where the Right is often opposed to laissez-faire economics, either out of ideological nostalgia for feudal or mercantilist institutions or the perception that libertarian economics leads to an extreme competitive individualism that undermines traditional communities and culture, whereas their primary goal is upholding a communitarian sense of national identity and unity.

We see the latter view in contemporary rightwing nationalist movements throughout Europe (e.g. AfD in Germany, National Rally in France, Fidesz in Hungary) - not to mention many Asian countries - adopt this position, and as you note that there's a smaller tradition of American conservatives who are skeptical of libertarian economics as well - JD Vance being one of them.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Agree. As soon as someone starts pushing distributism they don’t belong in the Republican party. I don’t think Vance has the intellectual depth or the right beliefs for SCOTUS. He’d make terrible decisions as he would in the oval office.

[alexander_busek]

Much like Chesterton and Belloc posited and argued for a third way, a path that did not look like Monopoly Capitalism or State Socialism, we may be some arguing for this now.

Regards,

[ek_hornbeck]

I would posit that the Sherman Anti-Trust Act has a modicum of Distributism behind it

That is correct. Anti-Trust laws were designed to achieve the Distributist aim of preventing monopolies and market distortions caused by collusion among a small number of corporate oligarchs. Anti-trust laws are essentially "Distributism" without the deceptive name.

[ek_hornbeck]

I don’t think Vance has the intellectual depth

As opposed to the intellectual giant Marco Rubio, whose only skill seems to be repeating official talking points (either the GOP establishment 10 years ago, or, opportunistically Trump today) like a stopped record. Take away someone else's script, and you're just left with a polished, suntanned empty suit. It's pretty bad when someone manages to make Chris Christie look brilliant by comparison.

[pierrem15]

The state always acts: it's how it acts that's important. We didn't embrace major redistribution & regulation until 1965 & afterwards and it wasn't until Nixon abandoned the Bretton Woods gold exchange requirement that unlimited trade deficits took off.

With a decade, US heavy industry in steel, shipbuilding, etc., collapsed. Automobiles almost collapsed, etc.

The "only our industry survived WWII" is a lazy excuse for bad policy. The exposure of the US market to East Asian and European mercantilism and financialization of the economy have been unmitigated disasters for the US.

[ChessExpert]

“The state always acts”

Sometimes more, sometimes less. Coolidge acted less and we had the roaring 20s. Reagan acted less and stagflation was cured. Trump, in his first term, acted less and the economy did very well.

Calls for state action, when heeded, usually turn out badly. The gold standard reduced the scope of government action. We got off the gold standard so that government could act. Socialists are unified in their call for government action.

[ek_hornbeck]

No one argues for “monopoly capitalism” (except the creators of the board game Monopoly). Markets abhor monopoly as nature abhors a vacuum. It takes government power to protect a monopoly from competition.

Even in the absence of a monopoly, a small number of corporate oligarchs can and will collude to fix prices and wages, without any help from government power. Furthermore, monopolies aren't as unstable as you claim - because they have more capital than upstarts, they can afford to temporarily undersell new competitors, only to raise prices once the threat of competition disappears. This is why conservatives and liberals alike mostly supported anti-trust laws at the turn of the last century.