JD Vance, the newly appointed U.S. vice president, has stirred the political pot with sharp remarks aimed at former British Conservative minister and current podcaster Rory Stewart. This unusual exchange began with Vance, who took his role less than two weeks ago, slamming Stewart for what he described as misguided arrogance and IQ misconceptions.
Vance accused Stewart of mistaking his intelligence, claiming, "I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the problem with Rory and people like him is they have an IQ of 110 and think they have an IQ of 130. This false arrogance drives so much elite failure over the last 40 years." This was part of Vance’s broader commentary on his interpretation of Christian values, where he stated, "There is a Christian concept... you prioritize your family, then your neighbor, then your community, and only then look to the rest of the world.”
Stewart, who co-hosts the popular podcast “The Rest is Politics” alongside Alastair Campbell, responded with evident sarcasm. He noted Vance’s ability to judge intelligence levels from afar and tweeted, "I hope your big genius is not making you patronising toward people with an IQ of 110 - since that's 75 percent of the US population. And perhaps even 1 or 2 of your voters." This retort exemplified the pushback against Vance’s perceived elitism.
The feud escalated when Stewart labeled Vance’s comments about prioritizing love for certain groups as "a bizarre take on the bible," adding it was, "less Christian and more pagan tribal." Stewart urged caution when politicians presume to speak for religious figures and dictate moral orders, emphasizing the potential dangers of conflated theology and politics.
Vance did not back down, replying with the retort: "Just Google 'ordo amoris.'" He was referring to the philosophical underpinnings of love’s hierarchy, asserted by St. Augustine over 1,600 years ago. He challenged Stewart’s interpretation by asking, “Does Rory really think his moral duties to his own children are the same as his duties to a stranger who lives thousands of miles away?”
This dialogue is not just about Christian teachings but also reflects broader tensions between populism and elitism. Vance’s approach stems from his background portrayed vividly in his memoir, Hillbilly Elegy, where he discusses overcoming adversity and climbing the socio-economic ladder. Conversely, Stewart’s privileged background — attending elite schools like Eton and Oxford — and his past roles, including as deputy governor of Iraq, position him squarely within the establishment. This makes their clash emblematic of larger societal discussions.
Adding to the discourse, former Labour strategist Campbell chimed in, criticizing Vance’s focus, saying, "Very odd the vice-president of the USA has nothing bigger to do than troll my podcast partner Rory Stewart... perhaps he has not been assigned a proper job by the Narcissist-in-Chief."
The exchange highlights the divides within political dialogue today, especially between those who prioritize immediate community interests versus those calling for broader global responsibilities. Vance’s statements resonate with many who feel neglected by existing power structures, citing his own rise from humble beginnings as proof of what can be achieved through prioritization of local values.
Stewart’s stand, on the other hand, reflects the concerns of political elites, who warn against allowing populism to dictate moral imperatives on global issues. His admonitions serve as warnings not only to Vance but also to any political figure stepping too far from established norms and accountability.
The overarching theme of this public feud pivots around the clash between deeply personal interpretations of love and duty versus universal obligations. Vance’s insistence on familial allegiance resonates with many Americans who prioritize their close-knit relationships, whereas Stewart advocates for conscientious global citizenship through shared human experiences.
This controversy has been amplified through social media, showcasing how quickly public figures engage, particularly when identities and personal beliefs are on the line. Vance and Stewart’s online battle gives the public insight not only to their ideologies but also to the tensions present within political institutions today.
While the spat might seem trivial or merely theatrical, it reflects a more significant fracture running through contemporary politics — the balance between personal, familial duty and broader societal obligations. Vance’s perspective embodies one rooted deeply within traditionalist Christian values where primary love is owed first to family, challenging the growing demands for expansive love across all humanity.
Stewart may represent liberal perspectives urging the consolidation of global sentiments over communal parochialism, aspirational as it may be. This back-and-forth serves as more than just another political exchange; instead, it’s a microcosm of the American socio-political climate and the struggle between two very different philosophies of governance and identity.