Vance: Because in their bones they know that this is their home, and it will be their children’s home, and they would die fighting to protect it.

That's Ohio Senator JD Vance at the Republican National Convention about five weeks ago, making the most important speech of his life: accepting the nomination to be Donald Trump's running mate. And it's a pretty weird speech, because he won't stop talking about death.

Vance: Assassin... Deadly... Run 'em over... Cemetery... Die... Die... Die... Fight and die...

It's weird because this is a golden opportunity to lay out his political vision for America, and not every convention speech is quite so dark.

Obama: It's that fundamental belief - I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper - that makes this country work. It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family. "E pluribus unum." Out of many, one.

That, of course, is Barack Obama, giving a speech at the 2004 Democratic convention. Though he's a rookie Senate candidate instead of John Kerry's running-mate, this speech is likewise his opportunity to introduce himself and his vision to America.

Thesis

So why do they sound so different? After all, Obama and Vance are actually…kind of similar. Both came from unlikely backgrounds, out of broken homes, raised by loving grandparents. Both experienced lightning political ascendancies. And both their speeches agree on a fair amount: that inequality is a problem, that Washington elites have abandoned regular Americans, and that it's an admirable and uniquely American possibility that each of them are standing on those stages.

Obama: America is an idea

Yet they disagree about one fundamental question: "What is America?" According to Obama, it's essentially an idea

Obama: Summed up in a declaration made over two hundred years ago, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” That is the true genius of America

The idea is inclusive

But where this sort of idea may sometimes be regarded as outdated or regressive, Obama emphasizes its openness. Because America's greatness lies in principles, anybody can participate in "making America great" by believing in and working toward the realization of those founding aspirations

Accordingly, throughout his speech he mentions

Obama: People I meet in small towns and big cities, in diners and office parks.

Vance: America is a nation

America is, in other words, an idea, and ideas are not exclusive to a single group of people. Vance, however, begs to differ. To him, it's not the ideas but some people that define America.

Vance: America was indeed founded on brilliant ideas, like the rule of law and religious liberty. Things written into the fabric of our Constitution and our nation. But America is not just an idea. It is a group of people with a shared history and a common future. It is, in short, a nation.

Later on, he elaborates,

Vance: Even though the ideas and the principles are great, that is a homeland. That is our homeland.

The nation is exclusive

And while Vance's "homeland" doesn’t necessarily preclude some kind of multi-racial society—his wife is South Asian and his children are biracial—this conception of American greatness is decidedly more exclusive than Obama’s. In Vance’s own words, his political vision doesn't include just anyone.

Vance: It’s about who we’re fighting for. It’s about the auto worker in Michigan...

Vance: It’s about the factory worker in Wisconsin...

Vance: It’s about the energy worker in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Throughout his speech, he sticks to this limited selection of Americans—the blue collar of the midwest and rust belt—while mentioning others rarely and only in general terms. The nation is exclusive, less to a single ethnicity or race than to a particular slice of society with a shared history and background, with a higher bar for the inclusion of outsiders.

Obama: leaders should embody the idea

Meanwhile, to Obama the great American idea isn't reserved for blue or white collar workers, residents of the heartland or the coasts: merely to believers, wherever and whoever they are. And because Vance and Obama define America and who belongs in it so differently, even though they largely agree on the key issues facing the country, they have very different solutions: differences evident even in the apparently stock-standard convention endorsements for their respective party's presidential nominee.

John Kerry is the right answer

According to Obama,

Obama: Our party has chosen a man to lead us who embodies the best this country has to offer. That man is John Kerry. John Kerry understands the ideals of community, faith, and service, because they've defined his life. From his heroic service in Vietnam to his years as prosecutor and lieutenant governor, through two decades in the United States Senate, he has devoted himself to this country.

And this endorsement follows clearly from Obama's definition of American greatness. Because America is essentially a great idea, a candidate's qualification rests on their dedication to those ideas. Kerry is a good candidate, but you can slot any number of names in here and the endorsement remains the same, because that foundational idea of American purpose doesn’t change. Moreover, Obama reiterates that these principles are universal and that working toward them is incumbent on all Americans, not just our leaders.

But it’s bigger than him

Obama: John Kerry calls on us to hope. John Edwards calls on us to hope. I'm not talking about blind optimism here - the almost willful ignorance that thinks unemployment will go away if we just don't think about it, or the health care crisis will solve itself if we just ignore it. No, I'm talking about something more substantial. It's the hope of slaves sitting around a fire singing freedom songs; the hope of immigrants setting out for distant shores; the hope of a young naval lieutenant bravely patrolling the Mekong Delta; the hope of a millworker's son who dares to defy the odds; the hope of a skinny kid with a funny name who believes America has a place for him too.

Because our history has been defined time and again by collective commitment to those ambitious principles, not by entrusting their execution to someone higher than the citizenry.

Vance: leaders should defend the nation

On the flipside, Vance endorses Donald Trump not because he represents the virtues which might be found in any of us, but because he’s dedicated to defending the nation and rescuing its people.

We need Donald Trump, specifically

Vance: For the last eight years, President Trump has given everything he has to fight for the people of our country. He didn’t need politics, but the country needed him.

Moreover,

Vance: President Trump represents America’s last best hope to restore what — if lost — may never be found again.

And here is a crucial turn for Vance. Because unlike Obama’s Kerry, who’s replaceable with any number of other representatives of the shared idea, Vance’s Trump is defined not by his similarity to the American people but by his separation from them. Vance stresses Trump is a New Yorker, a wealthy real estate developer who “didn’t need politics” and who is “America’s last best hope.”

Because the homeland is under threat

But what is Vance so worried about here? What is it about the American nation which is so under threat that only a remarkable hero unlike any other could save the day? In truth, Vance is worried about the integrity, the safety of the nation, simply because he sees it as a nation.

By defining the country as principally being a homeland to a particular, small slice of people with a shared history, Vance implicitly defines America in terms of insiders and outsiders. He's created a walled castle in his mind—compatriots within and enemies without—a sort of siege mentality in which the homeland is always under threat.

Vance: violence is the beginning and end of politics

In turn, the perpetual crisis calls not for democratic accountability but for strong leadership. America needs Donald Trump, because America is under siege, because America is a homeland belonging to a small chosen people. That's why, in the climax of his speech, Vance dives the deepest into death and insists on the importance that people be willing to fight and die.

Vance: In that cemetery, there are people who were born around the time of the Civil War. And if, as I hope, my wife and I are eventually laid to rest there, and our kids follow us, there will be seven generations just in that small mountain cemetery plot in eastern Kentucky. Seven generations of people who have fought for this country. Who have built this country. Who have made things in this country. And who would fight and die to protect this country if they were asked to.

Now. Now that’s not just an idea, my friends. That’s not just a set of principle. Even though the ideas and the principles are great, that is a homeland. That is our homeland. People will not fight for abstractions, but they will fight for their home. And if this movement of ours is going to succeed, and if this country is going to thrive, our leaders have to remember that America is a nation, and its citizens deserve leaders who put its interests first.

JD Vance is obsessed with death, because violence is lurking around every corner.

He’s not totally wrong: eros & violence

In one sense, Vance isn't entirely wrong to take this perspective. Because politics, nationalist or otherwise, probably never can entirely escape violence. People will fight for the things that matter most immediately to them: their families and their homes. And a political community does, at the end of the day, rest on the willingness of its citizens to lay down their lives for it. Violence is indeed the beginning of political life. Vance may be right about that.

The trouble with Vance's nationalism is that violence is all there is. There is no state of peace or vision for the future in nationalism; it's all about fighting to protect the nation as-it-is, preserving the "national character."

Obama: democracy is the end, violence is a last resort

By contrast, it's not as though Obama's speech is about a "kumbaya" drum circle. He too accepts the inherent role of violence in politics, saying that

Obama: John Kerry believes that in a dangerous world, war must be an option, but it should never be the first option.

Yet unlike Vance, Obama goes beyond violence, proposing that a political community can sustain itself on the cooperative, peaceful pursuit of shared ideals with the help of democratic institutions. We’ll never agree on everything, but we agree on more than we might think. We believe in a common American project, and democracy gives us a pretty good way to resolve the disagreements we do have.

Obama: There's not a liberal America and a conservative America - there's the United States of America. There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America. The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.

Liberalism offers a less violent political life

In other words, because America is based on a shared idea rather than some exclusive chosen people, unity between people of different backgrounds is possible. In fact, this is—contrary to Vance's claim that people won't fight for ideas—precisely the thing that makes America so strong, because these ideas can unify such a large and varied republic for a common purpose. Not to mention, the source of Obama's defining American idea—the Declaration of Independence—was itself a declaration of war which unified 13 colonies.

But, unlike Vance's nationalism, this is more than just a rallying cry. Without Vance's paranoid siege mentality, there's no need to dispense of democracy in favor of the chosen savior. Instead, these ideas provide a positive vision for the future: a shared endeavor toward a common goal laid out 200 years ago in which violence takes a back-seat to peaceful political competition.

Now, Obama is probably guilty of painting an overly rosy picture. American politics in the twenty years since his speech hasn't exactly worked out the way he described, and our history is littered with episodes of brutal division. You could also say something similar about Vance—that he's a political chameleon who shed his identity as an orthodox anti-Trump conservative to win a Senate seat and, now, a spot on a presidential ticket.

But, like the Declaration itself, perhaps it’s better to judge these speeches by their aspirations, the values they communicate. Because those aspirations and values aren't just words. Whether we obsess over death or look toward a brighter future, how we define "America" matters.