I've been talking to my friends over the past few days about JD Vance, who has b

I've been talking to my friends over the past few days about JD Vance, who has been nominated for the Republican vice presidential nomination.

I was very impressed with Hillbilly's song, and when liberals and liberals said, "Something's uncomfortable and ominous about this book," I thought, "Oh, it's just a life story. Stop making such a fuss."

I couldn't help but admit that their intuition was right when I saw the rapid advance of Trump's body, eventually entering the parliament from Ohio, and even winning the vice presidential candidate.

An interesting flow I discovered while looking again and again at Vance's nomination was the story of Patrick DeNin, a professor at the University of Notre Dame.

Dnin's book was also published in Korea as "Why Did Liberalism Fail", and the main point is that liberalism, which defines individuals as the absolute unit of society, and liberalism's belief in historical progress destroy human desirable life.

Going further than the commonly thought American conservatism, it does not stop at criticizing progressive liberals for mobilizing the state to dismantle the realm of community, but also coolly criticizes conservative liberals for neglecting corporate reckless activities and marketization of the community. It is argued that the left-right liberals are arguing with each other, but they are not only unhappy with people's lives, but also destroying the lives of future generations who have not yet been born and the natural environment surrounding humans, subordinating to individual pleasure.

Thanks to Dennine's all-cracking stance, I recognized him as a center-of-the-road conservative who probably valued community, and in fact, "Why Liberalism Failed" was recommended by Barack Obama and The New York Times, a leading liberal force in the United States. It was a book that directly hit my usual problem consciousness, so I personally posted it as the most impressive book I read that year.

But what is the context in which Dnin is frequently mentioned these days? There have been rumors here and there that Vance was heavily influenced by Dnin's radical ideas and that the two are very close.

I looked into what this gentle Catholic man was doing, and in fact, he began to argue for the spicier taste after "Why did liberalism fail?" In 2019, he met with Hungarian Orban Viktor, the vanguard of European anti-liberalism, and even published a book called "Regime Change: Toward a Postliberal Future" that called for fundamental conservatives to overturn the political order led by left and right liberals in 2023.

I've been thinking a lot about how things have been going for years since I've been turning my nerves off the United States.

Vance, a self-made investor and politician, was not this radical in the first place. He was a fierce critic of Trump at first. Critics of Vance, whether he is pro- or anti-Trump, criticize Vance who bowed his head to Trump. One side says, "Look, isn't that the guy who died after giving up his hometown after giving up on Peter Thiel's money to his family history?" and the other side says, "The guy who gave up on mainstream politics after giving up his hometown will join with His Majesty Trump now?"

However, seeing the articles that he was deeply influenced by the real Dnin who advocated the ultra-polar of the liberal order without hesitation, not the Dnin I only knew from the book of 2018, makes me think a little differently.

Vance certainly seems to have changed his mind. As "The Hillbilly Story" hits the jackpot and continues to get closer to mainstream politics, did his thoughts change more radical and radical? The current polarized political landscape of the United States does not allow the middle to exist, and the moment we dip our feet in polar politics, we have no choice but to be sucked into one extreme.

In my opinion, Vance truly came to believe in a vision of "post-liberalism," even if it had not yet been materialized in the process. And for that vision, he did not hesitate to bow to Trump, who had criticized him as Hitler.

If it really is, it means that he is a much scarier person than "a guy who sold his hometown for his personal glory and became a Trump rattle."

Of course, the election is not over yet, and Vance may not become vice president. Perhaps even if he becomes vice president, or even president, he will prove to be an opportunist, not much different from the mainstream of the United States. He is now 40, so even if he loses, there is a lot of possibility that he will remain a big shot at the presidency. Perhaps in the process, we will confirm his true self.

Will Orban, Erdogan, and Modi appear in the US as well?

It may be difficult, but it seems that there is a possibility. First of all, I should read Dennine's problem book, "Regime Change", soon.