You could base your politics on the whatever stands as the minimal conditions for the fostering of what you love. But what if what you love isn't good? It isn't politics until it is about the good, love by itself is just lawlessness. However, what you love is unambiguous, or pretty well so because the reference point is within yourself. What is good is abstract and hence shrouded in contradictions. Say you believe in humanity's spiritual destiny, its unique way of bringing cosmic Being to self-awareness. This is an evolutionary ideal and hence indelibly linked to a progress in time, and this already begs the question in favour of the cognitive, the technological, of matters in which the idea of progress is intrinsically present. What if the closest approach to perfection were in respect of those parts of the spirit which don't evolve, which don't progress, for which progress is a form of betrayal? Do we put these on hold for a time when our technology will enable us to better realise them? But it is just such a bargaining that they are destroyed by. Better to stick with love and face the perils that go with it.