JD Vance's Blame-Shifting Theory Unfolds in Real Time
The Republican vice-presidential nominee has previously addressed the issue of scapegoating. He is now applying these concepts in Springfield, Ohio.
TroibNews 
JD Vance’s ongoing critiques of Haitian immigrants have prompted a consistent reaction from Democrats, asserting that he and former President Donald Trump are "scapegoating" immigrants to deflect responsibility for the genuine challenges faced by Springfield, Ohio.
Indeed, the Republican platform is engaged in scapegoating Haitian immigrants. However, for Vance in particular, this seems far from accidental or impulsive. In his writings, he has explicitly recognized the significance—and potential hazards—of scapegoating, characterizing “efforts to shift blame and our own inadequacies onto a victim” as “a moral failing, projected violently upon someone else.”
As he intensifies his focus on Springfield, it's evident that Vance views scapegoating differently: as a strategic political weapon in Republicans' effort to regain the White House.
His past reflections on scapegoating cast doubt on his assertion that his intent is merely to highlight a growing humanitarian crisis in Springfield. Instead, Vance seems to be applying his earlier theories on scapegoating in a way that could have harmful repercussions for Springfield’s community.
Vance's understanding of scapegoating within conservative discourse largely stems from his association with Silicon Valley venture capitalist Peter Thiel. The two met in 2011 at Yale Law School, and Thiel has acted as an intellectual mentor and professional supporter for Vance.
Throughout their relationship, Thiel introduced Vance to the works of French literary theorist René Girard, whose ideas Thiel absorbed during his studies at Stanford University in the late '80s. Girard’s influence on Vance was significant enough that Vance has attributed his conversion to Catholicism in 2019 to Girard’s teachings as a catalyst for reconsidering his faith.
What lessons has Vance taken from Girard regarding scapegoating?
Girard, a French immigrant to the U.S. in 1947, is renowned for his theory of “mimetic desire”—the notion that human desires are shaped by observing others. An example might be a child wanting a toy simply because a friend is playing with it.
Girard posited that this competitive desire forms the foundation of human society, religion, and art. Over time, the struggle for limited resources leads to rivalry and conflict, culminating in violence. Societies, according to Girard, developed the “scapegoat mechanism” to resolve these conflicts, designating someone or a group to be punished, often fatally, for minor transgressions. This scapegoating ritual thus becomes a means of alleviating deeper social tensions.
Girard argued, however, that this ritual dynamic was disrupted by Christianity. In his view, Jesus Christ exemplified a quintessential scapegoat but with one critical difference: Jesus was completely innocent of any wrongdoing against the society that condemned him. His voluntary submission to death made the gospel narratives reveal scapegoating for what it truly is—a disguise for violence that redirects moral culpability onto the scapegoaters.
Vance has effectively articulated Girard's theory. In a 2020 article discussing his return to Catholicism, he wrote, “In the Christian telling, the ultimate scapegoat has not wronged the civilization; the civilization has wronged him. The victim of the madness of crowds is, as Christ was, infinitely powerful—able to prevent his own murder—and perfectly innocent—undeserving of the rage and violence of the crowd.” He summarized Girard’s religious significance by stating: “In Christ, we see our efforts to shift blame and our own inadequacies onto a victim for what they are: a moral failing, projected violently upon someone else.”
Vance also noted Girard's relevance to contemporary society: “Mired in the swamp of social media, we identified a scapegoat and digitally pounced. We were keyboard warriors, unloading on people via Facebook and Twitter, blind to our own problems.” Girard’s insights were personal for Vance: “The end result [of all this competition] for me, at least, was that I had lost the language of virtue.”
This moment of self-reflection prompted a shift in Vance's perspective: “That all had to change. It was time to stop scapegoating and focus on what I could do to improve things.”
Now, five years later, Vance seems to have changed his approach. Why might this be? Scholars interpreting Girard offer one perspective. While Girard didn’t explicitly state this, some have suggested that his understanding of Christian ethics may not provide a practical foundation for large, complex societies. A scholar has argued, “The gospel story is not a myth uniting the entire social order.” In essence, while a spiritual elite may adopt Christianity as their guiding principle, broader society might still rely on some degree of ritual violence for cohesion. In this light, scapegoating could be seen as not only inevitable but functional for uniting diverse groups.
Although Vance hasn't outright supported this view, echoes can be found in his previous remarks regarding the foundations of American identity. Unlike figures like Missouri GOP Sen. Josh Hawley, who promote Christian nationalism, Vance tends to focus on a vision of American identity tied to localities, family, and lineage—a perspective his detractors argue veers towards blood-and-soil nationalism. As he stated at the National Conservatism Conference in July, “People don’t fight and die just for principles. They go and fight and die for their homes and their families and the future of their children.”
If maintaining mass society necessitates some form of ritualistic violence, Vance seems willing to allow that to unfold, defending his remarks even amid several bomb threats that prompted evacuations in Springfield. Numerous Haitian residents in the city—many of whom have legally arrived under a federal resettlement initiative—have faced heightened threats and harassment.
On some level, Vance appears conscious of his contribution to escalating tensions.
“If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that’s what I’m going to do,” Vance stated in a CNN interview. Although he later clarified that he meant he was making the media focus on these issues, the underlying message remained: Vance is intentionally igniting conflict to enhance unity among his native-born political supporters, despite the resulting real risks faced by Springfield’s immigrant population.
The Girardian nuances in Vance’s statements are unmistakable. He often references the unfounded accusation that Haitian immigrants are involved in the abduction and killing of pets—a peculiarly exaggerated rehash of the scapegoat narrative—as a representation of the supposed negative impacts of immigration on American life. In response, he has urged followers to inundate social media with memes of Trump safeguarding animals—a term that shares its linguistic roots with “mimetic,” suggesting replication.
Ultimately, Vance and his supporters have fostered a meme-driven rivalry over limited social resources that threatens to erupt into violence against a minority group, all to revive a sense of communal strength tied to national identity. It’s a scenario that echoes Girard’s theories—but the real-world implications may be far more complicated than the theory suggests.
Max Fischer contributed to this report for TROIB News
Indeed, the Republican platform is engaged in scapegoating Haitian immigrants. However, for Vance in particular, this seems far from accidental or impulsive. In his writings, he has explicitly recognized the significance—and potential hazards—of scapegoating, characterizing “efforts to shift blame and our own inadequacies onto a victim” as “a moral failing, projected violently upon someone else.”
As he intensifies his focus on Springfield, it's evident that Vance views scapegoating differently: as a strategic political weapon in Republicans' effort to regain the White House.
His past reflections on scapegoating cast doubt on his assertion that his intent is merely to highlight a growing humanitarian crisis in Springfield. Instead, Vance seems to be applying his earlier theories on scapegoating in a way that could have harmful repercussions for Springfield’s community.
Vance's understanding of scapegoating within conservative discourse largely stems from his association with Silicon Valley venture capitalist Peter Thiel. The two met in 2011 at Yale Law School, and Thiel has acted as an intellectual mentor and professional supporter for Vance.
Throughout their relationship, Thiel introduced Vance to the works of French literary theorist René Girard, whose ideas Thiel absorbed during his studies at Stanford University in the late '80s. Girard’s influence on Vance was significant enough that Vance has attributed his conversion to Catholicism in 2019 to Girard’s teachings as a catalyst for reconsidering his faith.
What lessons has Vance taken from Girard regarding scapegoating?
Girard, a French immigrant to the U.S. in 1947, is renowned for his theory of “mimetic desire”—the notion that human desires are shaped by observing others. An example might be a child wanting a toy simply because a friend is playing with it.
Girard posited that this competitive desire forms the foundation of human society, religion, and art. Over time, the struggle for limited resources leads to rivalry and conflict, culminating in violence. Societies, according to Girard, developed the “scapegoat mechanism” to resolve these conflicts, designating someone or a group to be punished, often fatally, for minor transgressions. This scapegoating ritual thus becomes a means of alleviating deeper social tensions.
Girard argued, however, that this ritual dynamic was disrupted by Christianity. In his view, Jesus Christ exemplified a quintessential scapegoat but with one critical difference: Jesus was completely innocent of any wrongdoing against the society that condemned him. His voluntary submission to death made the gospel narratives reveal scapegoating for what it truly is—a disguise for violence that redirects moral culpability onto the scapegoaters.
Vance has effectively articulated Girard's theory. In a 2020 article discussing his return to Catholicism, he wrote, “In the Christian telling, the ultimate scapegoat has not wronged the civilization; the civilization has wronged him. The victim of the madness of crowds is, as Christ was, infinitely powerful—able to prevent his own murder—and perfectly innocent—undeserving of the rage and violence of the crowd.” He summarized Girard’s religious significance by stating: “In Christ, we see our efforts to shift blame and our own inadequacies onto a victim for what they are: a moral failing, projected violently upon someone else.”
Vance also noted Girard's relevance to contemporary society: “Mired in the swamp of social media, we identified a scapegoat and digitally pounced. We were keyboard warriors, unloading on people via Facebook and Twitter, blind to our own problems.” Girard’s insights were personal for Vance: “The end result [of all this competition] for me, at least, was that I had lost the language of virtue.”
This moment of self-reflection prompted a shift in Vance's perspective: “That all had to change. It was time to stop scapegoating and focus on what I could do to improve things.”
Now, five years later, Vance seems to have changed his approach. Why might this be? Scholars interpreting Girard offer one perspective. While Girard didn’t explicitly state this, some have suggested that his understanding of Christian ethics may not provide a practical foundation for large, complex societies. A scholar has argued, “The gospel story is not a myth uniting the entire social order.” In essence, while a spiritual elite may adopt Christianity as their guiding principle, broader society might still rely on some degree of ritual violence for cohesion. In this light, scapegoating could be seen as not only inevitable but functional for uniting diverse groups.
Although Vance hasn't outright supported this view, echoes can be found in his previous remarks regarding the foundations of American identity. Unlike figures like Missouri GOP Sen. Josh Hawley, who promote Christian nationalism, Vance tends to focus on a vision of American identity tied to localities, family, and lineage—a perspective his detractors argue veers towards blood-and-soil nationalism. As he stated at the National Conservatism Conference in July, “People don’t fight and die just for principles. They go and fight and die for their homes and their families and the future of their children.”
If maintaining mass society necessitates some form of ritualistic violence, Vance seems willing to allow that to unfold, defending his remarks even amid several bomb threats that prompted evacuations in Springfield. Numerous Haitian residents in the city—many of whom have legally arrived under a federal resettlement initiative—have faced heightened threats and harassment.
On some level, Vance appears conscious of his contribution to escalating tensions.
“If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that’s what I’m going to do,” Vance stated in a CNN interview. Although he later clarified that he meant he was making the media focus on these issues, the underlying message remained: Vance is intentionally igniting conflict to enhance unity among his native-born political supporters, despite the resulting real risks faced by Springfield’s immigrant population.
The Girardian nuances in Vance’s statements are unmistakable. He often references the unfounded accusation that Haitian immigrants are involved in the abduction and killing of pets—a peculiarly exaggerated rehash of the scapegoat narrative—as a representation of the supposed negative impacts of immigration on American life. In response, he has urged followers to inundate social media with memes of Trump safeguarding animals—a term that shares its linguistic roots with “mimetic,” suggesting replication.
Ultimately, Vance and his supporters have fostered a meme-driven rivalry over limited social resources that threatens to erupt into violence against a minority group, all to revive a sense of communal strength tied to national identity. It’s a scenario that echoes Girard’s theories—but the real-world implications may be far more complicated than the theory suggests.
Max Fischer contributed to this report for TROIB News
