JD Vance's Selective Morality

JD Vance wants to be more Irish than the Irish—or at least, more Republican than the Republicans. In his mind, this is his Cincinnatus moment: proof that his devotion to the cause outweighs even his loyalty to his own family. But instead of sacrificing for the Republic, he’s sacrificing the dignity of the woman who built him.

The controversy surrounding Marko Elez, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) employee who posted statements like “Normalize Indian hate” and “Just for the record, I was racist before it was cool,” should have been a clear moral test. Instead, it became a test of political allegiance—and JD Vance failed it spectacularly.

When Elon Musk polled X (formerly Twitter) users on whether Elez should be reinstated, Vance didn’t just refuse to condemn the posts—he actively advocated for Elez’s return, tweeting:

“I obviously disagree with some of Elez’s posts, but I don’t think stupid social media activity should ruin a kid’s life… We shouldn’t reward journalists who try to destroy people. Ever. So I say bring him back.”

This wasn’t about free speech or fairness. Vance didn’t have to say anything. He could have simply stayed out of it. Instead, he chose to make a clear ideological point—one that signaled, unequivocally, that he does not value the Indian identity of his own family.

His stance was so egregious that Representative Ro Khanna, a fellow Indian-American lawmaker, called him out directly:

“Are you going to tell him to apologize for saying ‘Normalize Indian hate’? Just asking for the sake of both of our kids.”

Vance’s response? Pure contempt:

“For the sake of both of our kids? Grow up. Racist trolls on the internet, while offensive, don’t threaten my kids. You know what does? A culture that denies grace to people who make mistakes. A culture that encourages congressmen to act like whiny children. You disgust me.”

It’s not just that Vance refused to take a stand against racism—he went out of his way to side with the racists.

This isn’t about abstract political philosophy or theoretical debates on free speech. This is about basic respect—for his wife, for his children, and for the heritage he married into. But Vance has made it clear that he sees Usha Vance not as a partner, but as chattel—a woman whose “Indianness” is an inconvenience rather than a defining part of his family’s identity. His children? In his eyes, they are slightly tanned white Americans, stripped of cultural heritage, denuded of any claim to the identity he refuses to defend.

And that raises the real question: Does JD Vance even deserve an Indian wife?

Because if he refuses to defend her dignity, her identity, and her very existence as an Indian woman in public life, then all he’s really saying is that her heritage doesn’t matter—that she was never meant to be anything more than a silent, supportive backdrop to his ambitions.

JD Vance’s selective morality reveals a man obsessed with power at the cost of his own integrity. Without Usha’s quiet strength, Vance would likely be another forgotten man from a broken town. But the American public deserves to see him for what he truly is:

A man who takes, then discards.