Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
At What Point Does Voting for Trump Become Virtue-Signaling?
With the exception of his convention bounce, Trump has been behind Clinton from day one. His paths to victory are extremely narrow and the predictions markets have consistently favored a Clinton win. On a state-by-state basis, Trump’s chances look no better. It’s a little too early to say that he’s going to lose, but its likelihood is both high and rising.
So, barring some major change (which, again, I concede is still just possible) we’re rapidly approaching the date where we can say it’s over and Clinton’s won. And if we reach that point, a vote for Trump will simply be a matter of virtue-signaling — whether to yourself or others — one’s justified loathing for Hillary Clinton and will have precisely the same impact as voting for Gary Johnson or even Evan McMullin.
Now, one might say that it doesn’t matter and that we should still hold out hope even when the odds are gone … but that’s been one of the main complaints against NeverTrumpers for months.
If we’re going to go down fighting, I’d rather do it under a banner I can be proud of.
Published in General
According to yesterday’s Rasmussen Poll, which shows Trump ahead by 1, Trump now has the backing of 71% of Republicans, down from 76% a week ago. Clinton has 73% of the Democratic vote, down from 79% in the previous survey. Trump attracts 15% of Democrats, while 12% of Republicans prefer Clinton. The GOP nominee continues to hold a small lead among voters not affiliated with either major political party, this week leading 36% to 28%. I find this encouraging, because I believe Trump will see a big bump from Mexico while Clinton is on a serious downward trajectory because of the foundation. Trump is currently getting 15% of Dems and 36% of Independents, a number that can only grow as we learn more about the foundation, Trump’s Republican numbers will only grow if we can either get more Nevers on board, or get them to fade quietly into the sunset and stop working against him.
The Hilldebeast is going down.
Maybe, but Tom is the person who started the topic re virtue signaling. Launching the conversation and then hiding when it becomes awkward is a curious move for a group editor.
Having to step away for a while is different from hiding. He’ll be back.
Besides other duties for Ricochet that require leaving the comments for a while (editing Contribs’ OPs, for example, and composing their own), the Eds also work other jobs outside of Ricochet. And sleep sometimes :-)
Voting for Trump is a private act and does not involve virtue signaling. Talking or writing about why you’re voting or not voting for Trump might be, particularly here at Ricochet where I would guess that less than 2 0r 3 % of the members who are potential US voters are still undecided. For that reason, I propose a moratorium on posts and comments that seem intended to persuade that small minority until the polls close in November.
It’s interesting: Trump and Obama may both be narcissists, but voting for Trump is not narcissistic, voting for Obama often was. Talking about it definitely was virtue signaling case in point: Peggy Noonan, whose post talking about why she was doing it was a masterful expression of deep self-regard.
None of this back and forth makes any sense to me.
I know nothing that can be said to one who cannot see that —regardless of what Donald Trump may be or represent— Hillary Clinton is the actual, living embodiment of virtually every conceivable threat to a free and open society.
Not only does she embody that threat, she is aided, accompanied, and abetted by a disciplined army of apparatchiks who are able and eager to assist her in accomplishing her goals.
It is the latter point that distinguishes her from Mr. Trump. No matter how poorly he performs or down what menacing trails he wants to lead the country, he will not arive at the head of an army of petty tyrants such as surrounds her. And, in fact, he will be only the putative head of a party that profoundly mistrusts him, whereas she leads a company of true believers.
If you love liberty, voting for anyone other than Mr. Trump is a foolish choice in my view.
Sorry, you are making too much sense. Presenting a strategic argument in a feelings driven discussion, wow.
It’s also been our policy in the Middle East.
As in every cycle, we need more of every friendly demographic. I agree that those pleading that their demographic isn’t important so they lack responsibility for their decisions are not necessarily entirely correct but, speaking as a Romney 2012 supporter, it’s not just our least favorite guys who are meaningful. If we’d got more volunteering and donating out of our base earlier, that would have made a huge difference. If we’d been less insulting to the jerks who later cost is the election, it would have helped. If we’d attracted more moderates, if we’d brought more conservatives on board earlier, if we’d done better with African Americans, or with Hispanics, heck, if we’d done better with gays we’d have won Florida.
If we’d done better at avoiding exciting the vote against us in Cleveland, if the unions were less (legitimately!) terrified, if we seemed less judgmental of single women, if we’d done a better job reaching out to Colorado evangelicals…..
Both victory and defeat really do have a thousand fathers. We need to be loving to all and rigorously examine ourselves for when we give offense or fail to provide support (if that means in the Presidential race for you, fine, if it means trying to save a senate or gubernatorial seat, or fighting for a representative or state legislator, fine). St. Paul may have put it best in Galatians:
6 Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently. But watch yourselves, or you also may be tempted. 2 Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. 3 If anyone thinks they are something when they are not, they deceive themselves. 4 Each one should test their own actions. Then they can take pride in themselves alone, without comparing themselves to someone else, 5 for each one should carry their own load. 6 Nevertheless, the one who receives instruction in the word should share all good things with their instructor.
7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8 Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. 9 Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. 10 Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.
Tom’s rapid segue from hypothesis to conclusion to moral imperative has all the authority of a psychic reading barely dignified by the trappings of a sliver of reality: yes, Trump is currently behind in the RCP average.
Forgetting the fact that Trump seems to be trending up, the bridge Tom crosses to arrive at his mixture of smug comparative superiority and illogic leads to no-where: under what philosophy or theology does it make sense to quit the game before time runs out? The election is not tonight, but 67 days away.
Despite rooting for Trump’s demise in the primaries (recorded in our Ricochet live chats), I’m certainly going to vote for him. One reason why is that many of the conservative intellectuals like Tom who proclaim themselves the vanguard of our ideology and defenders against the Trump are anything but inspiring in their writing.
At its core, there is something perversely and admittedly suicidal in Tom’s way of thinking. At his core, there is strength and leadership in Trump’s way of thinking.
Most definitely!
Tom lives on the East Coast, so it’s bedtime there.
Can’t say this is Tom’s motivation, but this argument feels to me like a NeverTrumper was tired of being scolded by Trumpers for moral preening and virtue signaling, and decided to strike back by reversing the charges, akin to Republicans who say the Democrats are the real racists.
I am sick of the whole VS argument, mostly because few people are clear on what it means. I don’t believe it applies in this case, at least not for voting. Now, making comments like “people who love liberty can only vote for Trump” is moral preening, and could very well be VS if the point of said comment was to elicit approval from fellow Trumpers.
There is always grandstanding in elections, and the Trumpers and NeverTrumpers are just too divided in their worldview to stop making their points. Well, from my POV most of the NT’s have given up on the election, and are more likely to believe that their votes really won’t matter, and haven’t been trying to argue Trumpers out of their vote (the hosts of Ricochet are commenting on the news). Trumpers are still clinging to the faith, fighting their fight, and since they believe their votes will matter, so must the votes of the NT’s, which has produced a seemingly endless array of posts that attempt to find a way to sway the NT’s aboard Trump Force One. But this isn’t VS – it is genuine concern.
Fawlty’s faulty? who knew.
Sometimes it seems like concern trolling.
Please tell me one of my comments inspired this post.
Within this forum, and behind our aliases and avatars, we are all self-righteous, morally preening virtue signalers.
Every last one of us.
Whichever side of the #NeverWhoever divide we stand.
The courage and integrity to such preening and signaling is directly proportionate to how real the name is one thumps their tub under.
One of your comments inspired this post.
Virtuesignalling sounds like a stupid concept to me. Pretty much on par with dog-whistle, check your priveledge, etc. (i.e. leftist BS)
Let everyone vote as they think is best for whatever reason and then we see at election day what happens. The hysteric debate based on polls is not leading to anything good. We further inflame the relations between factions on the right making it harder to sort out the mess after the election (regardless of who wins).
Many elections look hopeless in the polls and turn out to be lost causes (polls (or at least polling averages) are mostly correct). That is not an argument for cancelling the election or engaging in attacks on the people that support other non-leading candidates. It is is a reason to attack the leading candidate harder.
I’ve thought that myself. I could go in, vote for Trump, and when I come out I just say, “That was a voting booth!? I thought it was a porn theater!”
Dude, I know him! :)
Have you asked him his take on Trump?
Voting for a candidate is not a moral act. A person, whether it is Trump or Clinton or Cruz or whoever, cannot be immoral. Only actions are immoral. Voting or not voting for Trump should be a calculation of the expected effects of a Trump presidency versus a Clinton presidency.
Prior to the GOP debates, I figured Trump would be somewhat better than Clinton. Learning more about Trump persuaded me that a Trump presidency would damage the conservative cause as much or more than a Clinton presidency. Trump seemed crazy enough that I considered voting for Clinton just to keep him out of office. I later decided Trump is not that crazy, but is just a con artist. Now Trump is looking a little better. I still have two months to make a decision.
I may vote for Trump, but be wrong. I may not vote for Trump, but be wrong. Either way, that’s not my fault. It wasn’t my idea to nominate a candidate so lousy that it became ambiguous whether voting Republican would advance conservatism.
Oooh. This is my next sermon.
There is, and Trump is doing it, or at least trying. Good for him.
Yes, you are.
@misterd was close to the mark at #73. If (some) Trump supporters are going to be so keen to scold NeverTrumpers for voting their consciences, signaling their virtues, and preening, then it seems fair to ask whether such accusations might be comparably suited to them. Given how often I hear (again, some) Trump voters compliment themselves for their clear-mindedness, practicality, and willingness to do whatever it takes with regards to this matter, all the while supporting a candidate who seems to be on a clear path to failure, it appears to fit rather well.
As @kevincreighton said, though, the better and (I think) truer statement is that both choices stink this year and that honorable, principled people can disagree on this matter and even seek to persuade others to their position. I respect Kevin’s decision to vote for Trump, even if I think he’s making the wrong call and I hope he feels the same toward me.
Where is Hillary?
Doesn’t seem that clear to me. Though I have been sitting with bated breath for a bit and do not think it is clearly going to be a win, it is still not clearly failure.
It isn’t a stupid concept and it is real. I do not think it applies to voting or attempts to convince people on who to vote for.
I was under the impression Virtue Signaling is saying something to show you are the best a certain group has to offer while effectively doing nothing for that cause… Like the Hula Girl SJW who has been going viral lately. She signaled her virtue by insulting someone over “cultural appropriation” but undoubtedly doesn’t care one bit about a Hawaiian person or any appreciation for the dynamic politics in that state.
Unless you are vocally voting for Obama because he’s black to show you aren’t a racist or Clinton because she’s a woman and you aren’t sexist, I wouldn’t call voting “Virtue Signaling”. Its very shallow in terms. I do not think anyone here is shallow.
Well, I’m still a Canadian citizen and therefore can’t vote for Trump. I can, however, support him.
Don’t want to, would prefer not to, but I can’t allow, by actions or by my inaction, a Hillary Presidency to happen.
I want to vote for an actual Republican to be the next President. As WFB, jr. suggested the best conservative who can get elected. I don’t see that candidate in this summer of our discontent. Since I voted twice for Bush 43, for McCain, and for Romney I have no problems with my considering Gary Johnson. It would be the second time I chose not the GOP nominee. (The first distancing was in 1988 when I wrote-in Jack Kemp.)
Okay, okay, Trumpsters. Have it your way. I’m virtuous. There! I admit it. Well, at least I think it is virtuous to not vote for a guy who I think could very well cause a worldwide depression, catastrophic wars, and irreparable damage to the Republican Party and the conservative cause.
But could you guys just let me know to whom I am “signalling” this virtue? Because as far as I can tell, nobody cares in the least whether I’m virtuous, and the only “benefit” I get from being virtuous is that the Trump supporters call me a lot of nasty names.
@larry3435, I concur.
Is it virtuous to do the same thing over and over again with little hope of any change? When is the time to strike away differently.
There will always be wolves scratching at our doors seeking entry and shady woodmens who claim to slay the wolves. At some point, one needs a rifle.