Posted on 07/22/2026 7:48:07 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at stayvigilant.substack.com ...
There is certainly an element of social Darwinism on the American Right. As one of life's "losers," I am certainly open to right wing alternatives to laissez-faire.
What is your opinion of Social Credit? How does it differ from distributism (the answer is probably obvious to most FReepers but I've never been a maven of economics)?
However, there are dangers on that Right as well as on the Left. The first government in history that called itself totalitarian was Fascist Italy (though it never really was, and Mussolini defined "totalitarianism" very differently from how we do today). My motto in life is "be open to everything, but always exercise the most extreme caution." I hope that's not like a "square circle."
To be honest, I haven't really researched the Social Credit movement enough to have an opinion, perhaps I'll have to look into Douglas' writings or those of his followers at some time.
The first government in history that called itself totalitarian was Fascist Italy (though it never really was, and Mussolini defined "totalitarianism" very differently from how we do today
For all his flaws and stupid geopolitical moves, Mussolini's system was far more benevolent than other "totalitarian" regimes in Europe and beyond at the time, at least until he became a puppet of Hitler rather than an independent actor. His regime did not murder or even imprison political opponents en masse - usually they would be warned or roughed up, told to keep their views to themselves, and given the option to leave the country.
There was considerably more personal freedom under Mussolini than e.g. under Franco, never mind Hitler (or even more so leftist totalitarian regimes like Stalin and later Mao), without much in the way of book bans or the like. Furthermore, Mussolini was supportive of a strong private sector - his regime privatized many state-owned or run enterprises when he came to power, putting the lie to the claim that his regime was a leftist movement. One thing he had in common with some distributists was replacing trade unions (which were effectively banned) with "worker corporations" - i.e. guilds that would negotiate salaries while holding standard to worker conduct and production.
I say this not to argue that we should mimic Mussolini's regime, but simply to point out that there are other models of statecraft and economic/industrial policy besides laissez-faire and Marxist socialism, despite the fact that both Marxists and classical liberals like to claim that those are the only two alternatives.
I watched the video. I did not hear the words “Distributist” or “Distributism” one time. I didn’t hear anything like it. Can you point me to the minute he talks about it?
There was nothing objectionable about the video.
Perhaps a lot of hay is being made contrasting Friedman/Reagan in the 1980s and President Trump. Vance sensibly says that we are influenced by our times.
Back in the 1980s we had the cold war. The backdrop was the possibility of a hot war. It would be a conventional war with the possibility of going nuclear. General industrial policy did not figure into the cold war. Maybe some specific materials were restricted to the military, but no one care where our food or pharmaceuticals came from.
Times are different. We have had porous borders and our enemies have crossed them. Biological warfare is a reality like never before. We recognize that our industrial base has declined and the skills that undergird them are greatly reduced or gone.
Different times require different policies. That’s what I heard from Vance.
Where does Vance mention Distributism?
JD Vance has explicitly referenced and discussed distributism as a framework for political and economic thought. In an interview on the Joe Rogan Experience, he has discussed distributism as an economic “third way” found in Christian social teaching that contrasts with both libertarian free-market capitalism and socialism. He frequently relates the concept to creating an “ownership economy”.
He explained his views by noting:“...there’s a Christian idea of political economy that’s actually been lost in American politics, where it’s like we think of it as libertarianism, the hardcore free market, versus socialism or communism. And there actually is a third way that has existed in pretty much all Christian economic thinking going back 2,000 years ago,” as noted by The Stakehold.
He has also referenced the late 19th-century papal encyclical “Rerum Novarum” — the foundational text of distributism — when applying these principles to modern issues like artificial intelligence.
“In an interview on the Joe Rogan Experience, he has discussed distributism as an economic “third way” found in Christian social teaching that contrasts with both libertarian free-market capitalism and socialism. He frequently relates the concept to creating an “ownership economy”.”
I’d like to hear this for myself as so far people suffering VDS have come up empty. The video is three hours long. As I assume you’ve listened to it, perhaps you can tell me at what time he discusses distributism.
The more I look at this, the more it looks like mush. I’m not at all impressed by the article by Richard Excell. May of the posts are no better.
He discovers a third way between capitalism and communism. A third way has been proposed by just about every socialist in the 20th century. I guess it’s new because we are in the 21st century.
From the article:
Their solution was widespread, local ownership of productive property: “Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists.”
We have a quote, but from whom?
Capitalist and capitalism are attack terms, so they already throw people off the path of reason. Does the author (who?) mean that we have too few business owners? That would be an ok opinion. Note that such an opinion remains unsupported.
Personally, I think more Americans should be directly invested in the stock market. If their retirement program depends on the stock market, they should at least know it.
That’s my opinion. Where I diverge from the author is that I would not use government to force my opinion on others.
When someone says, “We should do this,” they usually mean the government should force people to do this. I say no way to that “third way.”
Oddly enough, Vance agrees with me that we need some details. He said the church operates at too high a level of abstraction. That’s what I’m seeing here as well.
What is “unfettered capitalism”? Does it mean total deregulation? No stop lights that regulate traffic? Do we need a third way to save us from this imminent danger?
Thanks for the link.
The video lasts over an hour. I copied the transcript and pasted it into my word processor, 21 pages. I did a search on Distributism: “search key not found.” Same with lower case “distributism” and “distributist.”
So far, “distributism” does not seem relevant to Vance.
I like to play chess. Perhaps I should pen an essay that says that J.D. Vance wants chess to be taught in all schools. My essay can explain all the benefits of playing chess. People will line up for or against Vance. I would gain a lot of support for my preference to play chess. Meanwhile, the real J.D. Vance will continue to play the occasional game of checkers (or go, etc.), never having played a game of chess in his life.
These are results for has jd vance advanced distributism
Search instead for has jd vance advanced distrubutism
AI Overview
Yes, Vice President JD Vance has actively advanced ideas rooted in distributism, bringing this historically obscure Catholic economic philosophy into mainstream American politics.
Distributism, formalized by Pope Leo XIII in his 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum, advocates for a “third way” between laissez-faire capitalism and state socialism. It posits that property and the means of production should be widely owned by individuals and families rather than concentrated in the hands of massive corporations or the state.
Vance has advanced this framework through his rhetoric, intellectual alliances, and policy platform in several distinct ways:
1. Explicit Validation of Distributist Text
Vance, who converted to Catholicism in 2019, has openly praised Rerum Novarum. In public discussions, he has called it “one of the best things that... has ever been written by a Christian leader,” explicitly highlighting its core argument for an economic middle path that protects the small proprietor and human dignity from industrial exploitation.
2. Alignment with “Post-Liberal” Thinkers
Vance identifies as part of the “post-liberal” right. He maintains close ties with a network of Catholic intellectuals—such as Patrick Deneen and Sohrab Ahmari—who draw heavily from historical Agrarian-Distributist movements. These thinkers argue that modern capitalism has eroded local communities and families, a core tenet of the distributist critique.
3. Rejection of Free-Market Fundamentalism
Vance has broken sharply from traditional Reagan-era economic policy. He frequently criticizes Milton Friedman’s laissez-faire economics, arguing that free markets are not inherently moral and must be subordinate to human flourishing, family formation, and community stability. He contends that treating economic growth as an absolute “idol” destroys the social fabric.
4. Policy Translation: “Working-Class Capitalism”
While Vance does not call for an agrarian return, he applies distributist principles to the modern economy through what he terms “working-class capitalism”. His policy priorities mirror a state-guided effort to distribute economic independence:
Industrial Policy & Tariffs: Using state power to rebuild domestic manufacturing, enabling single-breadwinner households to achieve economic self-sufficiency.
Support for Labor Unions: Expressing favor for private-sector trade unions to give workers collective bargaining power against concentrated corporate wealth.
Pro-Family Welfare: Advancing social and tax policies that economically incentivize marriage and child-rearing.
Distributist vs. Vance’s Economic Reality
Classic Distributism Vance’s Post-Liberal Populism
Focuses on small, localized farms, crafts, and widespread property ownership.
Focuses on reviving national industrial manufacturing and corporate regulation.
Deeply skeptical of highly centralized state power (subsidiarity). Embraces the ruthless exercise of federal power to reshape the economy.
Historically skeptical of large-scale industrialization. Seeks to master the industrial age to secure stable working-class wages.
By implementing government interventions to challenge corporate monopolies and bolster the economic independence of families, Vance has successfully transitioned distributism from theological literature into a foundational element of the modern “America First” governing philosophy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.