In the wake of J.D. Vance’s selection as Donald Trump’s running mate, various media outlets published think pieces on various aspects of Vance’s political rise and ideology. Because this is 2024 and everything is dumb, one lowlight was Politico’s deep dive into J.D. Vance’s appreciation for The Lord of the Rings.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, a major political site dedicated nearly one thousand words to how Lord of the Rings might be applied to today’s policy debate and how J.R.R. Tolkien might influence how J.D. Vance governs. As a Tolkien fan myself I read this with interest. Also as a Tolkien fan, I couldn’t help but laugh.
Let’s start with problem number one. The article describes fans of The Lord of the Rings (or as those in the secret society call it, LOTR), as “nerds.” Specifically, it says, “The trilogy of novels has been a longstanding nerd favorite for decades.” Trust me when I say I don’t mind the suggestion that people like me might be nerds. I’ve been called worse in my life. Still, there is a connotation in the “nerd” appellation that being fond of LOTR is a kind of niche interest, like enjoying cross-stitching or the music of Django Reinhardt.
The numbers vary (because LOTR is alternatively sold as one book and as three individual books of the trilogy), but Tolkien’s masterpiece is easily one of the five biggest selling books of all time. It was turned into a three-film work by Peter Jackson, every one of which was a blockbuster and, as Politico itself notes, garnered a total of seventeen Academy Awards. Saying, “I really enjoy Lord of the Rings” is like saying “I really like hamburgers” or “Of all the things in the world I could breathe, my favorite thing to breathe is air.” It’s hardly remarkable.
Further, the idea that Tolkien provides policy proscriptions for tax policy, immigration, or even war in Ukraine is a bit farfetched. To be sure, Tolkien’s tale has a morality to it, you might say a world view. I do think Tolkien has something to teach us about what constitutes a good life, how we should live virtuously, what are the dangers of war or the pursuit of power. In short, Tolkien’s work has political implications. But to suggest that any author’s work might lead a reader to this or that specific policy proposal strikes me as hackneyed.
Finally, Politico quotes Catholic University professor Luke Burgis as saying that Tolkien had “an apocalyptic frame of mind,” “a final and all-encompassing battle between good and evil.” To be clear, in the piece that first quote is attributed directly to Burgis and the second quote appears to be the author’s summary of something Burgis said. It isn’t clear that Burgis specifically said that Tolkien believed in an “all-encompassing battle between good and evil.”
Still, let me take issue with this take on Tolkien, a point perhaps divorced from the matter of J.D. Vance. Again, I don’t know if Burgis meant to imply this or whether it was the reporter, but readers should not get the impression that Lord of the Rings is a simplistic “good guys versus bad guys” tale. While the story does contain a battle between good and evil, it is far more complicated, and thus far more interesting, than an easy Manichean good versus evil story.
Tolkien does not hedge on the notion that there is good and evil. But how that gets personified in various characters is more complex than that. First, it should be said that the ultimate evil, that of the demonic figure of Sauron, is unambiguously malevolent. But all other characters are more conflicted.
Let’s look at the characters that might be called heroes. Frodo, who as Ring Bearer has the crucial job of actually destroying the evil One Ring, does at times behave foolishly. His silly behavior at the inn in Bree almost dooms the quest near its start. In the end, of course, Frodo cannot bring himself to destroy the Ring. He gives in to temptation and claims it as his own. He is saved not by his own virtue but by Providence. Like all of us, Frodo needs divine intervention to complete his task.
The kingly Aragorn is racked by doubt, unable at times to make decisions. At one crucial point, near the end of the first book, The Fellowship of the Ring, Aragorn’s indecisiveness has catastrophic results. Meanwhile, Gandalf and the elf-queen Galadriel are both tempted to seize the Ring and, in their desire to do good, make themselves into a new Dark Lord. However good they are, they know they are not good enough. Unlike some, however, they have the wisdom to reject this road.
It is easy in film and literature to depict evil. That’s why it is often so alluring. One of the great achievements of Tolkien is to present good in a compelling manner. This, I think, is because his good characters are relatable to us. They have flaws and weaknesses that they fight to overcome. When those weakness cause them to fail, they learn and try to do better.
Those characters that do fall into evil are also of a mixed nature. Saruman is the wisest of all wizards, but his study of the Dark Lord’s ways corrupts him. Denethor and his son Borimir are valiant warriors whose admirable desire to protect and fight for their land and people make them easy prey for the Dark Lord and his Ring. Even the wicked creature Gollum is not wholly bad. Gandalf reveals to Frodo that Gollum is descended from a people not unlike Frodo’s hobbits. He is more to be pitied than hated. As Gollum’s narrative develops the reader can see that Gollum is torn between the temptation to betray Frodo, whom he has sworn to serve, and a dimly felt sense of decency, a sense that there is still some good in him. It is only ill-treatment by another of the book’s heroes, Sam Gamgee, that drives Gollum to his ultimate betrayal of Frodo.
What might J.D. Vance, and we, too, learn from Tolkien’s work? One lesson may be to refrain from giving power to those who cannot be trusted. Tolkien teaches that all of us are corruptible, some more than others. The lust for power and control is an ugly thing. Vance might consider this as he looks to the top of his own ticket. This is also to some extent why we limit the power of government. If government’s reach is kept modest, a corrupt leader can only do so much harm.
Second, Vance might learn some humility. As just noted, all of us are capable of corruption. That means me. That means you, gentle reader. That means J.D. Vance. Those in positions of power and responsibility must always be on guard against their own perfidy. They cannot be easy on themselves, assuming that because their intentions are good therefore all their actions are justified.
Finally, as Tolkien says in one of his letters, ““You can’t fight the Enemy with his own Ring without turning into the Enemy.” In our day, the temptation is precisely to believe in our own purity and the depravity of our political opponents. We have a hard time acting civilly toward them. Here is the imprudence of the Democrat’s “Donald Trump is an existential threat,” argument. First, it isn’t true. Second, it tempts Democrats into thinking that all methods are acceptable because they are combatting such a terrible threat. Similarly, Republicans think that any method to defeat those dastardly Democrats is justified, because Democrats are an un-American and maybe even un-Godly threat to the nation we all know and love. It is time to stop being polite. We have to fight, fight, fight.
Once we’ve come to that conclusion, we are like Denethor and Borimir who believe we should use the Ring against Sauron. But the notion that all means are acceptable because our cause is noble is like the notion that we can use the enemy’s weapon against him.
I don’t know if J.D. Vance has or will learn these lessons. Maybe he has. We can all profitably learn from Tolkien’s work lessons that are politically salient, even if they don’t tell us how to vote and even if it means we are nerds.