By Simon O'Connor

In recent days, JD Vance – the Vice-President of the United States – made some comments around love, including both ‘how’ and ‘who’ we should love. His comments and the consequent reaction illustrates a stark contrast between those who talk big and those who have a more practical grasp on reality. I would suggest it well-highlights the difference between left-leaning progressives and those who hold a more conservative view.

The hoopla began when Vance, in a television interview, talked about who you should love in the world. He said:

“There is a Christian concept that you love your family and then you love your neighbour, and then you love your community, and then you love your fellow citizens, and then after that, prioritise the rest of the world A lot of the far left has completely inverted that …”

Within minutes, various progressives, woke activists, and wannabe theologians howled in protest – demonstrating the very inversion JD Vance mentioned. They claimed we are called to love everyone, and without any distinction. As you would expect, much of the attacks held a political rather than religious purpose. Loving everyone means open borders, near-unlimited foreign aid, thoughtless multiculturalism, and so on. Loving everyone without distinction also justifies global activism from climate change to controlling free speech.

Yet, most people understand that Vance is right. We may be nobly called to love everyone, yet we also know we are human and have limits. Consequently, we do priortise who we love and care for, starting with our families, our immediate neighbours, those in our country, and so on.

One need only do the simplest of thought experiments to understand how this is obvious or how the counter-notion that we must love everyone, everywhere, equally is absurd.

If you have to make a choice between your drowning child and someone else’s child, it is obvious who you will choose. No question.

It is also a question of capacity. We simply cannot love everyone, all the time. Think of how each of us supports various charities. None of us can support all and every charity; we instead make choices and more often, prioritise those that are closer to home. This is natural and normal.

This is the concept in Catholic thought called ordo amoris – the order of love. It was an idea first articulated by St Augustine in his book The City of God. He wrote this sometime during the 5th century. The great theologian and philosopher, St Thomas Aquinas took up the idea hundreds of years later (the 13th century) when he wrote his Summa Theologica.

Put exceptionally briefly, they both acknowledge that while we are called to love everyone, it is not possible and so there is a common sense ordering. Yes, we can say that everyone is our neighbour but this is a rhetorical flourish devoid of practical application.

And this is the key political point. The progressive or woke side of politics is very good at the grand, emotional, broad rhetorical flourishes. They are less good at actually doing anything.

It is one of the key reasons why the left of politics is being so roundly rejected of late. Be it Jacinda Ardern or Justin Trudeau, the trouncing of Biden/Harris and the Democrats, or the likely demise of Starmer and Albanese – people are sick and tired of hyper-emotionalism from the left that does not accord with reality. People just want action, not ‘kind’ words.

Many progressives – who found a miraculous interest in Christian theology all of a sudden – were quick to quote the Gospel of John, where Jesus says that “greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends”. True as this is, you can only lay your life down once, so you have to choose.

The progressive movement spends countless hours wringing their hands about major global issues, each so massive that no matter what is said or done, little changes. It is a perfect recipe for remaining in activist mode and miserable. They can remain angry all the time, for nothing changes other than continuing to emote and criticise others. Importantly, it gives the impression of doing something while actually doing little. Such causes give purpose and identity, but not usually action or refinement.

For example, it is comparatively easy to protest and opine on climate change, Gaza, or the latest in vogue idea for ‘human rights’ than volunteer at the local soup kitchen. The latter requires action and sacrifice. It might only help a handful of people who get served, but it does something. Protesting may give an impression of action, but it does not have that immediacy of impact. In fact, more often than not, little changes but those protesting have an excuse to remain angry and a reason to do little else.

I would also make this key point, that JD Vance did not – but love is not simply an emotion – it is a call to real, practical, effective action. And as we know, love or charity, begins at home.

As a quick aside, the Latin word for charity is caritas. Of note, in many older biblical texts written in Latin – this word, caritas, was often used to translate the Greek word of love, which is agape.

Speaking of ‘at home’, this confused thinking is evident in New Zealand politics. Much noise is being made about potential Trump tariffs and yet, simultaneously, the government signs New Zealand up to even more ambitious Paris Climate targets which effectively impose thousands of dollars of ‘tax’ per household every year. You might also observe, that both these issues are well outside New Zealand’s control or our ability to have any real consequential impact.

So JD Vance is right.

People can choose to follow the progressive line of thinking and emote highly, speak in grand narratives, and protest regularly. Just like New Zealand government policies over recent years that were wrapped up in the rhetoric of ‘kindness’ but were anything but kind, such people can talk of loving the globe yet globally ignoring the needs of people right in front of them.

Or we can see the needs of our world in those right in front of us. It is why we love our family first, then our immediate neighbours, and when capacity remains, those wider afield. By effecting change at home, we create a nexus of change that who knows, may well go on to change the world.

Originally published at OnPoint.