J.D. Vance, the New York Times, and Decency

The Times' readers weigh in.

Earlier this week, the New York Times published a collection of personal emails between J.D. Vance and a law school friend of his.  The two were politically far apart, but for many years shared a close and respectful friendship in which they discussed the things that they agreed and disagreed about.  Then the friend, Sofia Nelson, who identifies as a "gender queer radical pragmatist" broke off the friendship over Vance's support for an Arkansas bill banning gender reassignment for minors.  Here's what Vance said that was apparently too much for Sofia's "radical pragmatist' sensibilities:

Well, that doesn't sound radically pragmatist to me, but rather brittlely ideological.  But so far the story's pretty predictable.  As soon as Vance became a Republican VP candidate, he became Hitler, Jr. in the eyes of the press.  And of course, getting a close family member or friend to issue a bitter denunciation is a classic technique of the left, with roots in Stalin and Mao.  And the publication of private emails, which allegedly raised grave issues of journalistic ethics when Hunter Biden or Hillary Clinton were involved, raises no questions when it’s J.D. Vance – or, for that matter, Sarah Palin, whose hacked emails were gleefully published by mainstream media.

But the good news is that the Times' readers are surprisingly unpersuaded by this hit job.  Below is a sampling of the top comments on the Vance story as of earlier today.  Not every comment is like this, of course – there are plenty denouncing Vance – but as I scrolled down a majority of the comments I saw were along these lines:

_______________

These emails are genuine and written with true affection. Vance's thoughts are evolving over time and this makes me respect him more. Sharing these with a news outlet ia a betrayal of friendship and the person who shared them is clearly not trustworthy.

---

This article makes me feel icky. I’m not sure it changes my views about Vance in either direction (not a fan). But I am deeply skeptical of someone who shares private correspondence like this. And if his goal was to make Vance look bad, he failed.

---

Have to admit I found this reporting really strange and gossipy and not what I expected from NYT. I feel gross having read it. Maybe a piece on his transformation and relationship changes, fine - but just like email exchanges from a close friend I felt I shouldn’t be reading until an anticlimactic ending with one disagreement (albeit big important one) that wasn’t followed up. Can’t believe it manage to humanize JD Vance. Ugh.

---

Vance’s friend’s comments about transgender care of minors - that the treatments have been studied thoroughly and are fully reversible - are false. Even American medical authorities are finally beginning to follow the lead of Europe and conduct systematic reviews. There is no contradiction between loving and supporting an adult who chooses to pursue these treatments and believing they are not appropriate for children. Also, shame on this individual for leaking private emails.

---

I'm absolutely no fan of Vance, but I'm also not a fan of disclosing personal communications. People and circumstances change over time. I wouldn't want correspondence I exchanged years ago used against me in the court of public opinion. It's bad form.

---

I don't know that much about JD Vance but I expected to feel negatively about him by the end of this article. Instead, I felt like his messages portrayed him as intelligent, open minded, and well written. The main thing I felt negatively about was how Sophie completely wrote off a decades old friendship due to a political disagreement and then publicized their private conversation.

---

Shame on Vance’s “friend” for making private correspondence public. What a lack of class.

---

Everything I’m seeing here appears to be someone who is very thoughtful and considered in his opinions. If anything, it makes him far more appealing than the current soundbites do. And there is nothing trans phobic in that text. The rest of the world is already saying some version of what he says there. “We don’t actually have solid science on this. This is an experimental treatment. Pump the brakes until we have a better idea of what this is doing to kids long term.” The only reason that comes across as “hateful” is because we are being fed the lie that medicalizing gender questioning kids is the only thing standing between them and suicide. (That is also an assertion that doesn’t have solid science behind it.) The US is lagging behind Europe in our views on medicalizing gender questioning youth. Vance comes across as balanced and considerate.

---

This story ends because one guy feels that gender care for minors is experimentation? And that is the basis for an end to a friendship? No wonder we don't get anywhere in this country. People stop listening to others even when their views are thought out. Now we have a guy that may become Vice President who has shown a capacity to listen to others (unlike Trump) and he gets cut off by his friend? I see no point in releasing these conversations other than maybe to show that Vance has a heart. Otherwise, much ado about nothing.

---

Yikes. This is mortifying for Sofia Nelson and The NY Times. A grotesque breach of human decency and display of pettiness all to reveal…what we already knew about JD Vance? He is an egregious hypocrite and opportunist with exponentially more ambition than principles. We’ve known that since he sidled up to the GOP and Trump (actually, you should’ve known when he first rose to prominence, but I digress). With the exception of perhaps John Fetterman, I can’t think of a single current politician who doesn’t fit the exact same description. The icing on the cake is that everything Nelson says about transgender surgery is false or undocumented. Actual journalists would’ve had serious doubts about the motives and credibility of anyone claiming the procedure is “completely reversible.” Shameful, from start to finish.

---

While these emails may (or may not) shed light on who JD Vance is, publicly releasing a personal friend's extensive correspondence written with an understanding and expectation of privacy is wrong, no matter what the supposed high-minded political purpose is. On top of that, the issue over which Nelson broke the friendship (banning transgender procedures for minors) is one over which many centrists and even Democrats agree with Mr. Vance, and is currently the accepted medical position in much of Europe and the rest of the world. To consider Vance an extremist and break a longstanding friendship over this is itself extreme.

---

I'm no fan of JD Vance. But this take-down was disturbing and didn't have the effect that I think Sofia Nelson and Stephanie Saul intended. These are private communications between friends. It appears their friendship ended when JD shared his honest view that "I think the trans thing with kids is so unstudied that it amounts to a form of experimentation." I think many people in both parties share that view. I share that view myself, and I'm a registered Dem who zealously supports Harris. At least Vance was being forthright with his friend. In return, Sofia Nelson has now made those private and very personal communications very public. That doesn't sit right with me.

_______________

So the good news here is that the NYT is out over its skis, way beyond its readers' views on the subject.  And it's getting the "have you no decency?" treatment, usually employed by leftists against people on the right, from its own readers.  Maybe because it doesn't.

But its readers do, and they're judging the Times harshly as a result.  Given the political division we face these days, it's good to remember this.

[As always, if you like this essay, please sign up for a paid subscription. I will thank you, and my family will thank you.]