The successful failure of JD Vance
By Anthony Kila
There is a peculiar kind of success that deserves its own category—not the success of achievement, but the success of abandonment; not the triumph of a fulfilled vision, but of a surrendered one. It is the success of failing well, consistently and with discipline.
It is, if you will permit me, the story of Mr. JD Vance, the current Vice President of the USA.
JD Vance did not begin as a man without insight. On the contrary, he began as a man who saw clearly.
Before power exerted its influence, before proximity blurred boundaries and ambition altered convictions, Vance had a remarkably clear view of Donald Trump. He did not whisper his thoughts about Trump; he declared them openly. He once described Trump as “reprehensible.” He warned that Trump might be “America’s Hitler.” He also called him “noxious” and unworthy of a leadership role.
This was not the language of confusion. It was the language of clarity. Yet from that clarity emerged one of the most elegant political pirouettes of our time: JD Vance did not merely change his mind; he failed to stand by it. He agreed to serve under the very figure he had so vividly diagnosed, and in doing so, he did not disprove his earlier judgement—he simply abandoned it.
There are failures of ignorance; in JD Vance’s case, it is a failure of knowledge.
As a candidate, Vance entered the political scene with qualities highly valued in modern politics: youth, a compelling narrative, and a strong sense of identity. Coming from modest beginnings, he worked his way through the rigorous environment of Yale Law School. Vance was well placed to be a voice for Middle America, and he had the good fortune and courage to create a biracial family, reflecting the complexity and potential of contemporary American society.
Imagine the potential he had; he could have served as a unifying figure, bridging different groups. Instead of embracing that role, he chose to be a barrier, a wall. On the campaign trail, Vance remarked about a country “run by childless cat ladies,” a phrase that was not only dismissive but also revealing of his attitude. He tended to adopt a political style rooted in grievance, suspicion, and exclusion, rather than fostering understanding. This approach was a stark departure from the image of a modern American leader who recognises and values diversity, viewing it not as a threat but as an inherent aspect of the nation’s fabric. It was not a matter of lacking the background or experience to bring people together; rather, it was a conscious choice to use rhetoric that divided rather than united.
Then came the Vice Presidency—the office that offers, if not power in abundance, at least influence through proximity.
Here was JD Vance’s chance to be what many expected: the thoughtful interpreter, the intellectual ballast, the Ivy League mind capable of translating impulse into policy and tempering instinct with reflection. Instead, he became something else: an echo.
Time and again, Vance has stepped forward not to refine, but to defend; not to question, but to justify. Whether in matters of foreign policy or domestic controversy, his voice has often sounded less like that of an independent thinker and more like that of a loyal amplifier.
The man who once warned of recklessness now explains it. The critic of irrationality has become its custodian.
In the practical theatre of governance, he is striving to succeed by failing.
From the beginning at the White House, he pursued a clearly defined route to failure. Back home, he was tasked with backing a contentious Attorney General nomination—an instance that required persuasion, alliance-building, and political skill. The effort failed. His influence did not lead to success. Ultimately, he succeeded only in failing.
He travelled abroad, lending his voice and presence to support Hungary’s Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán—an endorsement as bold as it was unusual. The electorate responded otherwise. Again, he failed successfully.
He led high-level engagements with Iran in Islamabad to advance diplomatic progress on nuclear tensions and regional stability. He tried to do in 21 hours what, if achieved after 21 days of intense talks, would have been considered very quick; the outcome was the same: no agreement. A diplomatic journey that arrived nowhere. He left the stage, saying the final word had been said.
In each case, the pattern holds—not the absence of effort, but the consistency of unproductive results. And then, as if to add a note of irony to the composition, there is the matter of faith.
In recent years, JD Vance has embraced Catholicism with visible conviction. He chose to make a journey that could have been a private one, rather public event. It is a journey that, in another context, might have opened new intellectual and moral pathways—perhaps even a book, a reflection, or a contribution to the enduring conversation between faith and public life. But history, with its peculiar sense of timing, intervenes.
At the very moment when such a path might have been explored, Vance finds himself instead defending his political principal, the doctored saviour, in disputes that, at times, even extend to the moral authority of the Pope. It fell to JD Vance to advise the Pope to be careful when he talks of theology. Yes, the Pope.
One might say that even Lady Luck, on this occasion, has chosen to stand aside and enjoy the jest. Yet beneath and around these episodes, there is a thread—clear, consistent, and instructive. It begins where it always has: with knowledge.
JD Vance was well aware of who Donald Trump was. He openly and explicitly stated his recognition of Trump, diagnosing his character, outlining the associated risks, and expressing his concerns. These statements are preserved in public record and have remained unchanged over time. The difference over the years was not in his assessment of Trump but in his personal conviction and stance toward him. This distinction highlights the core of his paradoxical failure: the most significant failure in public life is not simply to misjudge a situation—that can be human and understandable—but to accurately judge it and then act as if one has not, effectively ignoring or disregarding that judgment.
Politics, at its best, is not merely the pursuit of power but the exercise of judgement. It asks of those who seek office not perfection but consistency; not infallibility but integrity.
JD Vance’s journey offers us a different lesson: it shows that a person can elevate themselves, express their views, and observe the world around them, yet through a series of choices still reach a point where success is not defined by what they have accomplished, but by what they have chosen to leave behind. He has, in that sense, succeeded remarkably. He has succeeded in failing to be the man he once seemed to be, the man he could have been. And that, perhaps, is the most instructive story of all.
- Anthony Kila is a Jean Monnet Professor of Strategy and Development at the Commonwealth Institute of Advanced and Professional Studies (CIAPS). He also serves as Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of the Governing Council of the Michael and Cecilia Ibru University (MCIU).
