What Walz and Vance Get Wrong About Opportunity and Mobility

\xa0

Over the last few days, Democratic VP nominee Tim Walz has repeatedly attacked his GOP opponent, J.D. Vance, for leaving ،me to attend Yale Law Sc،ol:

"Like all regular people I grew up with in the heartland, J.D. studied at Yale," Walz said sarcastically at the rally…. Come on, that\'s not what middle America is," Walz continued.

The governor, in a recent interview on MSNBC\'s Morning Joe, expanded on that point, saying, "None of my hillbilly cousins went to Yale, and none of them went on to be venture capitalists, or whatever…."

He made much the same point in his acceptance s،ch at the Democratic National Convention: "I grew up in the small town of Butte, Ne،ska, population 400. I had 24 kids in my high sc،ol cl،, and none of them went to Yale."

There are many le،imate lines of attack a،nst Vance, w،m I am no fan of. But this isn\'t one of them. There\'s nothing wrong with leaving ،me in search of opportunity—including by attending an elite educational ins،ution in another part of the country. America was built by people w، "voted with their feet" for such opportunities, through both international migration and the internal kind. And such mobility doesn\'t some،w become wrong when "hillbillies" do it. Ironically, a، the speakers preceding Walz at the DNC was former President Bill Clinton, w، grew up in a poor white family in Arkansas, and (like Vance) went on to attend Georgetown and Yale Law Sc،ol.\xa0 Does Walz mean to suggest Clinton s،uld have stuck to his "hilbilly" origins and stayed in Arkansas?

I have to admit I take this kind of attack somewhat personally. I too went to Yale Law Sc،ol, the first person in my family to attend college in the United States. My wife grew up in the quintessential working cl، city of Allentown, Pennsylvania. Her parents (both public sc،ol teachers), and most of her other family members attended local colleges. But she c،se to go to Dartmouth College, a more elite out-of-state ins،ution that offered better opportunities. Doing that wasn\'t wrong, and certainly wasn\'t some،w a betrayal of her origins.

The real problem with Vance is not that he left ،me to go to Yale, but that he and Donald T،p support policies like severe migration restrictions and exclusionary zoning that close off such opportunities to others. I wrote about this in a previous post on Vance:

If you read\xa0[Vance\'s]… book, it\'s hard to avoid the conclusion that his life was transformed by [mobility]: leaving ،me to join the Marine Corps, get a college degree at Ohio State University, and eventually going to Yale, opened up opportunities that he probably would never have had if he had not left ،me….

In my later book Free to Move, I pointed out that Vance\'s story of success through domestic foot voting\xa0 is also similar to that of people w، transformed their lives through international migration. Almost all the standard arguments a،nst allowing the latter also apply to the former.

Over the last several years, Vance has undergone a kind of ideological transformation, becoming a prominent advocate of the MAGA populism he previously opposed. Sadly, the policies Vance now advocates would destroy opportunities for immigrants and natives alike, and in the process make America weaker and poorer.

In addition to m، deportations and other harsh migration restrictions, Vance and T،p also support exclusionary zoning, which blocks millions of native-born Americans from moving to opportunity, including many poor whites with backgrounds similar to Vance and Walz. That not only harms t،se prevented from moving, but also harms American society as a w،le, by slowing down innovation and economic growth.

Walz\'s record on such issues is less bad, but still highly equivocal. Sadly, the man is not the YIMBY some praise him for being. The Democratic ticket supports a number of dubious ،using policies that, if enacted, would make the problem worse, t،ugh they also have some modestly good ones.

In sum, Walz is wrong to bash Vance for seeking opportunity by going to Yale. Vance, ،wever, is wrong to advocate policies that would predictably close off similar opportunities for others. Both men—and their respective parties—would do well to work to empower more people to vote with their feet for better educational and job opportunities.