Authors’ notes: Due to the somewhat theoretical and philosophical nature of the article, the potential reader’s attention is drawn to the author’s opinion on the eventual effects of the policies (if adopted), as described by DJ Vance.

The consistent implementation of isolationist policies by the United States will, in the medium term (approximately 5 years), likely lead to a confrontation with China, potentially regaining its position as a world leader. If a military confrontation becomes a reality, the USA, within five years, will likely face China, which will have combined forces from both Russia and Ukraine, as well as skilled fighters who are better equipped to handle the job than an average American recruit from Texas after a training camp.

To the article by the Ayn Rand Institute, where the author, Nekisha Moore, criticizes the views of American politician J. D. Vance.

The main issues of the debate are the moral foundations on which society is based and the role of the Christian religion in it.

Moral foundations: Christianity versus individualism

The main issue raised by the article is the clash between two different moral systems. According to the author, J. D. Vance proposes Christian morality as an alternative to “leftist” ideology. Moore, on the other hand, argues that the Christianity promoted by Vance is just as collectivist and “self-denying” as the systems he criticizes.

According to Vance, Christianity must provide an answer to the moral crisis, which, in his opinion, is a consequence of individualism and the absence of common values. He advocates a return to traditional, family, and community values, which he believes are based on Christian doctrine. He believes that the focus on personal well-being and selfishness inherent in modern capitalism and political individualism is destroying society.

In contrast, the author of the article, Nekisha Moore, defends rational individualism, which is the central idea of objectivism (Ayn Rand’s philosophy). She argues that the true good is not self-sacrifice, but the achievement of one’s own happiness and success through rational thinking and productive activity. From her point of view, Christian morality, based on self-sacrifice and service to others, cannot be an alternative because, like “leftist” ideologies, it requires people to give up their own interests for the sake of the collective (a false point of view, or an incorrect interpretation of leftist ideology).

Perception of capitalism and individualism

Another important point of controversy is the perception of capitalism and individualism. Although Vance belongs to the Republican Party, which traditionally supports capitalism, he criticizes certain aspects of it. He believes that the excessive individualism and materialism that accompany modern capitalism lead to the breakdown of families, the degradation of communities, and the loss of a sense of community. His position is close to so-called national conservatism, which seeks to combine a market economy with traditional values and the protection of US national interests as a state institution.

In contrast, Moore argues that true, free capitalism is the only system based on rational egoism and individual freedom, without regard to the state as an institution of power. She believes that Vance’s criticism of capitalism is flawed because he misinterprets its essence. For her, personal freedom and the opportunity to achieve success are the highest values. 

The debate also concerns the place of religion in politics. Vance seeks to use Christianity as the basis for political decisions and social organization. He believes that moral decline can only be stopped by returning to religious dogma.

The author, however, argues that relying on religion in politics is a dangerous proposition. She is convinced that morality should be based on reason and rationality, not faith, and believes that the philosophy of objectivism is the only correct approach to building a society where each person is a self-sufficient, rational being responsible for their own life. 

Thus, the main controversy between J. D. Vance and his opponents, as presented in this article, is that:

Vance proposes Christianity as the basis for morality, based on collectivism and traditional values.

His critics (as exemplified by the Ayn Rand Institute) believe that such morality is as collectivist as the “left” and that the only correct foundation for society is rational individualism.

If we compare this statement to Ukraine, our country does not choose a single, unified morality, but rather develops it at the intersection of several key factors that are important to society. This is a complex interaction of historical traditions, contemporary challenges, national identity, and Western values.

It is interesting to consider collectivism versus individualism.

Ukrainian culture has always had strong traditions of collectivism. This was evident in rural communities, where mutual assistance and collective survival were more important than personal interests. The post-Soviet legacy also reinforces this trend, as the ideology of the time promoted the ideas of the collective over the individual. However, since independence, Ukraine has actively begun to integrate into the Western world, where individualism is a fundamental value, and the promotion of these ideas began through Russian-language literature. Recall the wave of Vadym Zeland’s books “Reality Transurfing” with a circulation of more than 3 million copies. As a result, such teachings began to create tension between generations and different social groups. At the same time, the ideas of collectivism create responsibility towards the family, community, and state, and promote mutual assistance. And they do not restrict personal freedom, self-realization, the right to choose, or the protection of human rights.

The next interesting component is patriotism and national identity.

After Russia’s full-scale invasion, there was a surge of patriotism in Ukraine. This moral value is expressed in the willingness to defend one’s country, culture, language, and history. This is not just a declaration, but daily actions — volunteering, supporting the army, and realizing that one is part of a large community. This unity becomes the basis for a new morality based on justice, dignity, and self-sacrifice for a common goal.

Christianity, particularly Orthodox Christianity, plays an important role in the lives of many Ukrainians. Religion influences moral norms relating to family, attitudes toward neighbors, and charity. However, Ukraine is a secular state where freedom of religion and secularism are important values. This means that moral norms cannot be imposed solely on the basis of religious dogma, but must be consistent with the principles of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.

In general, Ukraine is moving towards a morality that combines the best elements:

Patriotism and unity in defending the country.

Respect for human rights and individual freedom, as is customary in Western democracies.

Conscious responsibility to society and the state that goes beyond personal interests.

This synthesis creates a unique moral system that allows Ukrainians to unite to address global challenges while maintaining respect for diversity and the rights of each individual.

Individualistic countries, such as the US and most Western European countries, are looking for a new path of development. They have strong institutions that protect individual freedoms, and their problems are not related to the need to build a society from scratch. Rather, their peoples are looking for ways to solve existing problems that arise from an individualistic value system, but they are not abandoning it.

Therefore, Ukraine is a unique case.

The model developing in Ukraine is unique and cannot simply be copied by others. Its formation is the result of war, historical experience, and the desire for Western integration. It is a unique process that reflects the peculiarities of Ukrainian society.
In the US today, there is not only a political but also a profound moral debate. Vice President J. D. Vance, inspired by the Catholic tradition of “ordo amoris” (order of love), argues that we must first love “our own” — our family, community, country — and only then distant strangers. For him, this is an argument in favor of state protectionism, which means restricting immigration and prioritizing the interests of the state.

But critics manipulate, citing as an example the classical teachings of the Church Fathers—Augustine and Thomas Aquinas—who spoke of something else. Everyone should be loved equally, and the difference is only in the order of priority, not in the value of life. This position dangerously brings the Christian “order of love” closer to the secular altruism of the left — from Pope Francis to Peter Singer. In both cases, the main requirement is to sacrifice oneself for the greater good. What this means: Universal love. According to Augustine, every person is a creation of God, so everyone deserves love equally. There are no “second-class” or “less valuable” people: a poor stranger and one’s own child are worthy of the same moral respect. Priority of assistance. Since we are limited in resources (time, money, physical presence), we are forced to distribute them in a certain order. It is logical that a person will first help those who are closer (for example, their family or fellow citizens), because it is easier and more accessible. But this “order” does not mean that those who are closer are “more important” than those who are far away — it just means that we actually act in stages.
Absence of a hierarchy of values.
In this approach, there is no moral scale where one life is “more important” than another. The only difference is in practical priorities: who you can help now and who you can help later.

If a child and a stranger are in trouble at the same time, it is natural to save the child first — but not because the stranger is “less worthy of love,” but because your resources are limited and it is easier to save someone who is “closer.”
Today, the American right appeals to “national sacrifice,” while the left appeals to “global solidarity.” But both moralities require sacrificing one’s own interests. For America, this means choosing between two forms of paternalism: one with biblical quotations, the other with humanistic manifestos. Philosophers in the spirit of Ayn Rand remind us that there is an alternative. It is not a cult of sacrifice, but rational egoism, where people seek happiness in their own achievements and voluntary cooperation. An open economy, immigration, and global trade are not “threats to the nation” but tools for long-term prosperity. The article poses a global question about the future of the United States: segmentation or a new consensus? The reality, however, is more complex. The “red” and “blue” states increasingly live in different moral worlds. Here — communitarian nationalism, there — universal humanism. For now, this means federalist segmentation, where each moral code dominates in its “own” territory. But will there be a third way — a policy of rights and procedures that does not require constant self-sacrifice from citizens? This is the question for the coming decade. Let’s leave some room for discussion. 

Victoria Lisnycha