A Screwtape Letter for JD Vance
In praise of demonic sophistry
Since JD Vance was announced as Donald Trump’s running mate, we’ve discovered so many horrifying/dumb/weird things Vance had said that have come to be noticed that one of the first we kinda glossed over. POLITICO found an archived episode of a podcast where he was asked who his favourite writers were:
“I would have to say Tolkien,” Vance said. “I’m a big Lord of the Rings guy, and I think, not realizing it at the time, but a lot of my conservative worldview was influenced by Tolkien growing up.” He added of Tolkien’s colleague: “Big fan of C.S. Lewis — really sort of like that era of English writers. I think they were really interesting.”
Well of course he is a fan of Tolkien, the Hillbilly Wagner. But the CS Lewis thing was while also not surprising was interesting.
Plenty of smarty-pants (mostly bro) pundits praised Vance’s “slick” debate performance. And in the rush for hot takes, so many people had already half-written their analysis in their heads, which basically came down to “my expectations were correct that the Yale-trained lawyer pretending to be a rube was a better debater than the high school football coach,” so that’s what they wrote.
A bit surprisingly, the moderators’ second question of the night was quite good, linking the recent disasters following Hurricane Helene in the US to climate change:
Let's turn now to Hurricane Helene. The storm could become one of the deadliest on record. More than 160 people are dead and hundreds more are missing. Scientists say climate change makes these hurricanes larger.
Stronger and more deadly because of the historic rainfall. Senator Vance, according to CBS news, polling seven in 10 Americans and more than 60% of Republicans under the age of 45 favor the US taking steps to try and reduce climate change. Senator, what responsibility would the Trump administration have to try and reduce the impact of climate change.
Watch the whole interaction:
So I thought I’d turn to Vance’s second-favourite author, CS Lewis, for some analysis of Vance’s “slick” responses. Or rather, the demon Screwtape - who in Lewis’ best book is sitting in Hell constantly sending letters to his nephew Wormwood on how to do a better job corrupting the souls of mortals on Earth.
Fortunately, we can exclusively reveal this long-lost letter of Screwtape about last night’s debate:
My Dear Wormwood,
Your recent observations of Senator Vance's performance in the vice-presidential debate positively delighted me. What a fine example of deceit in its most effective form—not through outright lies, but through the subtle shaping of emotions and insinuations that bypass the Enemy’s reasoning. Let me guide you through the Senator’s masterful application of misdirection, which I trust you shall find instructional for your own labour.
1. Emotional Appeal as a Shield
The Senator began by recounting a tragic story of grandparents and a child lost to the hurricane. This was a calculated move, Wormwood, because nothing distracts a human from critical reasoning more than a stirring emotional appeal. By focusing the audience’s hearts on the sorrow of these innocent victims, he kept their minds far away from considering why such disasters may be occurring more frequently. They were too busy feeling to think—precisely the outcome we desire. When they are grieving, they are pliable, vulnerable to other suggestions that may subtly enter their minds. Emotional distraction, my dear nephew, is a splendidly effective tool for shielding one from the truth.
2. Misdirection Through Subtle Racism
Senator Vance did something truly splendid when he spoke of putting "citizens" first in disaster response, implying that only certain people deserve the full measure of the government’s help. He cleverly implied that non-citizens—perhaps immigrants or minorities—shouldn’t be prioritised, tapping into underlying prejudices among his audience without stating anything too explicit. And he subtly plants the suggestion that the Enemy’s administration is cheating the good “citizen” of disaster relief by giving it equally to those in need, instead of first giving it to those we deem more “deserving” because they are the “real” Americans. The beauty of this tactic lies in its subtlety: it sounds patriotic, even righteous, but it sows seeds of division, ensuring that humans remain divided in their sympathies.
Even more delightful was his purloining of the term "clean" to describe the U.S. economy and "dirty" when referencing China. Here he wasn't just speaking in environmental terms, but rather invoking age-old associations between cleanliness and morality, subtly tinged with racial and cultural stereotypes. By suggesting America’s economy was the “cleanest” while others were “dirty,” he reinforced national pride tinged with disdain for the “other”—a strategy that keeps the minds of humans preoccupied with feelings of superiority rather than thoughts of unity or genuine problem-solving. Ah, misdirection by division—it never ceases to be effective in making them blind to the greater common challenges they face.
3. Creating an Illusion of Agreement
The Senator next addressed climate concerns with a facade of acceptance: "Let’s just say that’s true just for the sake of argument." Brilliant, Wormwood, just brilliant. He did not openly deny the facts—a quaint approach in these modern times, I realise, and really a moment where he demonstrated his superiority over his putative Lord. Instead, he feigned acceptance, only to undermine its implications through a patriotic but fundamentally misleading argument. This subtle undermining of truth allows him to plant skepticism and mistrust, while still seeming rational and agreeable. Humans prefer to have their existing doubts gently confirmed rather than starkly challenged—this is a truth that you must always remember.
4. Replacing Complex Truths with Simplified Half-Truths
Rather than grapple with the complexities of carbon emissions, Senator Vance pivoted to the universal platitudes of “clean air, clean water”—concepts no sensible person could disagree with. This tactic allows him to bypass the inconvenient and controversial aspects of climate action while still appearing to advocate for the environment. This is the art of displacing uncomfortable truths with comfortable half-truths. Humans are often eager to accept comforting lies over inconvenient realities, and this is a weakness we must exploit at every turn.
5. Reframing the Debate with Economic Patriotism
Senator Vance then reframed climate change into a debate about manufacturing and economic nationalism—an ingenious move. He suggested that to reduce emissions, production should be brought back to the U.S., implying that American methods are inherently cleaner and better. This taps into nationalist sentiment while ignoring the fact that climate change is a global issue, not bound by borders. Such selective framing lets him sound pragmatic, while leaving his audience ignorant of the real systemic changes required. And of course, the appeal to nationalism stirs up pride—another lovely distraction from true, selfless action.
6. Casting Doubt Through the Opponent’s Inconsistency
Lastly, Senator Vance’s method of casting doubt upon his opponent was nothing short of deliciously devilish. By suggesting that if Vice President Harris truly believed her rhetoric on climate, she would follow his energy policies, he redirected the conversation from the facts at hand to the perceived inconsistencies of his opponent. This doubt by implication is a superb tool, allowing the audience to conclude the worst about his opponent on their own, making the deception feel like their own logical conclusion rather than something planted.
Oh, Wormwood, there is much to admire here. The Senator managed to validate the audience’s fears, express their frustrations, provide a seemingly patriotic solution, and sow doubts—all without a single, overt falsehood. He did not need to lie; he simply allowed them to build their own fortress of prejudice, fear, and distraction. Always remember, Wormwood, the best lies are not those we tell, but those we help them tell themselves.
Your affectionate uncle,
Screwtape
It’s better if I don’t reveal my sources, or indeed how CS Lewis could have had a character analyse a debate that took place 60 years after the author died - though presumably a demon in Hell outside of the temporal plane like Screwtape would have access to all sorts of information.