The Priority of the Local

The online publication “Nature Communications” has an article titled, “Ideological Differences in the Expanse of the Moral Circle.” It demonstrates by use of a heat map, the moral priorities of the Right vs the Left. Using concentric circles, a heat signature upon those circles shows that psychologically the Conservative’s moral concerns are most intense at the center surrounding where he exists, and as concern extends outward it becomes less intense or should we say less prioritized. Exactly the opposite is the psychology of the Liberal.

On the heat map, circle 1 closest to the center represents family, circle 2 extended family, 3 closest friends, etc. And as the circles extend outward from the center, they represent people in your country, your continent, all continents, all animals, all living things, all inert entities, and finally the universe itself. According to “Nature Communications,” psychological research demonstrates:

“Liberals express compassion toward less structured and more encompassing entities (i.e., universalism), whereas conservatives express compassion toward more well-defined and less encompassing entities (i.e., parochialism).”

The Liberal prioritizes the more universal, abstract and ideological while the Conservative tends toward the local, real and practical. The Conservative’s priorities begin at the center with family and extend outward with friends, community, county, State, country, etc.… The Liberal prioritizes the outer rings first, things such as the environment over people, as was clearly demonstrated in the recent Los Angeles fires. They will prioritize foreign nationals over the citizens within their own county. They are far removed from the mindset of a Brion McClanahan whose mantra is “think local.” Our Southern ancestors knew the importance of first thinking local as their political philosophy of States sovereignty indicated. They knew that prioritizing the valued ways of life of those more immediate in proximity to us is the foundation for human flourishing. Certainly, the Conservative’s moral concern reaches out beyond his immediate circles, but as Dr. Jordan Peterson emphasizes, we all must set our own house in order before we look to expand our moral actions. But is this way of thinking self-centered and immoral? If our country was founded on Christian principles, is there justification for prioritizing that which is more immediate and local in proximity to us first?

The recent Presidential election was won on an “America First” theme. Recently VP J.D. Vance stated in an interview that Trump’s “America First” theme had philosophical roots in Christian Theology:

“There is a Christian concept that you love your family, and then you love your neighbor, and then you love your community, and then you love your fellow citizens, and then after that, prioritize the rest of the world.” 

Vance’s claim has scriptural support. Left leaning Christians will argue that the Parable of the Good Samaritan means we must extend our charity to all mankind equitably and without prioritizing. They seem to think we are morally obligated to open our borders to all those in the world who wish to come here. But that ignores the teachings of the Apostle Paul in which he prioritizes the proper order of our compassion:

“But if any man have not care of his own, and especially of those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” 1 Timothy 5:8 

While the Parable of the Good Samaritan certainly teaches us that our compassion and charity must extend to all mankind regardless of race, creed or nationality, there is a scriptural prioritization of how it is to be extended. The parable and the words of Paul must be held in balance. It is of priority that we take care of the needs of our own house as the important first step in “loving our neighbor as ourselves.” We should seek to properly care for those in our immediate vicinity before we can properly extend that care and compassion to our more distant neighbors. Taking care of your own first is a moral obligation that involves a more direct charity and provides greater allocation and personal evaluation of the benefit. It forms a proper foundation for expanding our moral concerns which extend out through the concentric circles with a proper priority, not based on ideology but rather on practical efficacy.

When compassion focuses on endangered species and illegal aliens before it focuses on the needs of family, friends, and neighbors, it tends toward a mental illness that shirks an immediate moral responsibility. And it even evolves into a strange hatred of all that is more proximate and immediate to us and more like us. It becomes anti-family, anti-local and wants to delegate power to a few in some distant government instead of allowing our local governments to decide the allocation of resources, what will be taught in our schools, or displayed in our public spaces. Because Leftist priorities are improperly placed, they will not properly love themselves and therefore cannot properly love others. They become virtue-seekers and virtue-signalers instead of genuinely seeking first the good of their families, friends, neighbors, communities, counties, States, country, where they might make a real practical difference in human flourishing, and then extend what charity is available to other nations; yes even to the environment with its snail darters and spotted owls. They can’t do much for anyone else if their own immediate situation is not cared for first.

Great leaders within the Christian tradition such as Thomas Aquinas taught the proper ordering of our moral concerns. In his Summa Theologica, Aquinas taught a hierarchy of charity. First you owe charity to God, then to yourself, and then your neighbor as yourself. And he says that while generically we should love all our neighbors equally, the activity of our charity is by the very nature of proximity more intense to those around us. The degree of care we have for our various neighbors is related to proximity levels of kinship, friendship, and nationality. He goes on to say “there is yet another reason we love more those who are more nearly connected with us, since we love those in more ways. For towards those who are not connected with us, we have no other friendship than charity, whereas for those who relate to us we have certain other friendships according to the way in which they are connected.” Shared traditions, values, and customs better prepare us regarding how to allocate resources to maximize benefit.

By the nature of our spatial existence, by immediacy, proximity, and familiarity, we have a more intense and demanding moral obligation to meet needs where we can have the most positive impact. There is practical reason for saying “think local.”  By emphasizing the priority of local government, charity will be more intense because it is in immediate proximity to those for which it is intended to serve. It does not have to feel forced and comes more from the heart instead of distant government programs.

So, what about illegal aliens already here in our country and the call for immigration reform? There already is a humane and legal migration law in place. Contrary to our Christian obligation we have for too long allowed it to be ignored. Consequently, evil people are coming in along with those who are simply seeking to better their lives. The latter provide an unintended trojan horse for the former who murder, rape, deal in drugs, and child trafficking. That alone makes all illegal crossings an unethical border crossing. And there are bad consequences to allowing illegals to stay. It sends a message that if you risk your life to get here illegally you will be accommodated and rewarded. Unfortunately, the US cannot accommodate everyone in the world who has the ambition for a better life. Who then do we let in and where do we draw the line? After all we must act equitably. But only by legal immigration practice can we do so. If we try to accommodate all in the world seeking a better life, it won’t be long until our own economy and social order will collapse from the overwhelming burden of too many impoverished people. Where then will those wanting to better themselves go? We won’t even be able to care for our own, much less provide aid elsewhere. Leftists are allowing their desire to “be virtuous” to override common sense and practical reason. The ultimate consequence will eventually be anything but virtuous as the US itself will collapse from the weight of third world migration and become a part of the third world itself. Accusations implying we do not have a functional border policy, and that we are now separating families, is nothing but the fabricated political rhetoric of the Left. Everyone seeking to immigrate or seeking asylum has a lawful pathway to make that a possibility. Illegally crossing borders and being allowed to stay is not something any Christian should condone. We should not reward bad behavior.  We should be focused on making the return of these immigrants to their home countries as painless and humane as possible for them and allow controlled immigration only when we first have put our own house in order as far as domestic needs are concerned. We should not be playing into the hands of Leftist ideologues and their neo-Marxist universalist ambitions who are ignoring the ultimate immoral consequences of their open border ideology. And we conservatives, knowing that for the most part they are simply hoping to use these illegal immigrants as political pawns for political power, should resist their moralizing with every fiber in our body.

Certainly J. D. Vance is right to point out that the “America First” theme has roots in the Christian tradition, a tradition upon which our country is founded. And though this political theme has nationalist focus, it can be an important first step in pointing out that there is nothing immoral or unethical about “thinking local” and prioritizing the circles that are closer to the center.  It is a very important priority in the ordering of our compassion and charity.

Rod O'Barr

Rod O’Barr is retired and lives in Tennessee with his wife of 45 years, Kathy. He has advanced degrees in Philosophy and Theology, and a lifelong interest in history. He is the webmaster of a WWII website and a member of both the Abbeville Institute and the SCV. When not enjoying time with his children he enjoys doing living history at local schools.

View all posts