The Unlikely Bard of Our Time: JD Vance’s Defense of Emily in Paris

Vice President JD Vance has recently come to the defense of Netflix’s Emily in Paris, calling it “the Shakespeare of our time.” His comments have sparked a lively debate about the show’s cultural significance and its intended message. While some praise his willingness to engage with younger audiences, others criticize him for misreading the show.

On the surface, Vance’s praise seems innocuous enough – he suggests that the show critiques millennial decision-making through its portrayal of Emily’s romantic entanglements. However, this interpretation reveals more about Vance’s own biases than it does about the show itself. By focusing on the protagonist’s personal choices as a commentary on millennial values, Vance overlooks the ways in which Emily in Paris also critiques societal pressures that shape women’s choices.

Vance’s emphasis on the show’s supposed criticism of “atrocious decisions” made by its characters ignores the fact that Emily’s mistakes are often portrayed as a natural consequence of her own desires and aspirations. The show acknowledges the societal expectations that drive millennials to make those choices, rather than simply scolding them for being reckless.

This nuance is lost on Vance, who seems more interested in using Emily in Paris as a vehicle for his own brand of cultural critique. His comments are reminiscent of a trend where politicians and pundits speak over and on behalf of younger generations, rather than listening to their voices and perspectives. This approach erodes trust between age groups and reinforces the idea that older generations have all the answers.

Commentators like Brian Moylan have offered a more astute analysis of the show’s themes and intentions. By pointing out that Emily’s romantic entanglements are simply a product of narrative needs, Moylan highlights the ways in which Vance has misread the show’s message. As Moylan notes, this approach is similar to Shakespeare’s own comedies – ones that rely on romantic misunderstandings and conflicts to drive their plots.

Vance’s defense of Emily in Paris raises questions about how politicians engage with popular culture. Rather than using shows like Emily in Paris as a tool for their own brand of cultural critique, they should be listening more closely to the voices and perspectives of younger generations – and working to build trust and understanding between different age groups.

As we look ahead to the 2028 election cycle, it will be worth keeping an eye on how politicians like Vance continue to engage with popular culture. Will they use shows like Emily in Paris as a means to project their own cultural critique, or will they take a more nuanced approach – one that recognizes the complexity and diversity of younger generations’ perspectives?