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
I think I have to take back the part about accepting the intent of the OP. This really is just a childish attempt to turn around the accusation from the other side.
It just doesn’t work. There’s no way to take Trump support as virtue signaling. For most people it’s desperation to keep Clinton out. For many, it’s an attack on the establishment. That attack is not about the establishments lack of virtue. It’s about their failure.
Virtue is what makes it hard to vote for Trump. That doesn’t mean opposition to Trump is virtue signaling, but it is at least compatible with that position.
Bill Bennet is in no position to make that case. He should not be using that phrase. It’s hypocritical from his position.
Opposition to Trump can come across as virtue signaling when it’s done in some ways.
“He’s not qualified”, “He’s a rapist/racist/fascist” “He can’t do that”, insulting arguments like this OP.
They’re the type of arguments that make it easier for me to get over my displeasure at having to pick the lesser of two evils.
I disagree. “I’m signalling how much I care about the little guy, the blue-collar worker, and real America – unlike those too spoiled to support Trump” is one of the first signals that comes to mind.
(This is particularly evident to anyone who has ever worried that Trump will actually hurt those things.)
I’m not predicting but I’m predicting. Trump might just make it. If Hillary does she will be beyond reviled. She and ‘Foundation’ LMAO are already. Assassination attempts will stir the pot for EITHER candidate. NO other candidate stands a chance. Civil bloodshed is a clear possibility. WWIII is close too guys! There is no ‘waking up.’ We are in this DEEP. Business as usual ain’t gonna happen.
In my hard Left corner of (is it really) the USA, during Bob Dole’s presidential run I saw a refrigerator magnet for sale that said Bob Dole for refrigerator magnet. I laughed. I was going to vote for Dole, but he was such an unappealing candidate to me that the magnet was funny.
Seconded.
Forget the Republican Party, forget the conservative cause. The country would be better off governed by conservative principles, the Republican party failed to present us with an electable conservative candidate for this election.
To be electable, he or she would have had to have broad personal appeal and then do two things: mobilize the voters to whom the Tea Party appealed (OK, three things since that mobilization would have required a candidate to move away from the Party on immigration among other pivotal issues) and whom the Republican Party has has treated like dirt for years, and attract voters away from the Democrats.
For various reasons that have been discussed directly and indirectly on Ricochet and elsewhere, the Republican Party failed to develop such a candidate for this election cycle.
Many consequences flow from that failure. For this election cycle, Hillary as President was going to be one of them. Along came Trump who might prevent that.
Hillary would be worse for the country’s future than Trump would be.
What happens to the Republican Party after Trump? Given the Party’s extended institutional failure, that is of secondary importance to me. What happens to the conservative movement? I don’t know, but we were going to get more of the same and that hasn’t gotten us out of our intellectual ghetto so far.
As Nigel Farage recently pointed out, one “respected” poll in England showed the Remain side winning by 10% on the morning of the Brexit vote. It is way too early to start writing Trump’s obituary.
Thanks, my issue with your post is less about pro -vs- anti Trump, than the accusation of virtue signalling.
As far as I can tell, you are tired of people who “scold NeverTrumpers for voting their consciences, signaling their virtues, and preening” and wanted to let them see how they would feel if the position is reversed. Is that it?
Close.
More like “Suggested that they apply the same standard to their own actions/protestations.”
I haven’t seen Trump support presented that way.
It’s still different. They would be supporting him because they believe he would help people. The true believers seem pretty confident in Trump winning, it can’t be virtue signaling if they think it will actually accomplish something.
Virtue signaling kind of requires the lost cause.
I’m sure you would agree that Trump’s lack of virtue is important. Virtue is a big part of the argument. Calling something an argument over virtue is really only an insult to a libertine post-modern. Adding “signaling” is what makes it pejorative.
There are plenty of real critiques to use against Trump without relying on childish taunts aimed at Trump supporters.
You could even deal with the charge of virtue signaling with a simple “Yes, morals guide my decisions”. It’s much better than “I’m rubber and you’re glue. Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.”
So let me understand this. If someone actually thinks ‘the little guy’ has a legitimate claim and grievance that needs to be addressed, taking that position is ‘virtue signalling’?
I call BS. You have created the right wing equivalent of ‘trigger warnings’ which are used to control speech and thought.
If my complaint about ‘the little guy’ puts you in an uncomfortable position, all good #Nevers now get to yell “Virtue Signal” just like their SJW counterparts.
Do not buy it.
Et tu, quoque?
This strikes me as nothing other than Red Jersey/Blue Jersey thinking. What I take away from this is there is no candidate wearing a red jersey that could be horrific enough that you would consider not voting for him or her and there is no candidate wearing a blue jersey that could be good enough that you would consider voting for him or her.
There is nothing wrong with that view, it just isn’t convincing to someone that isn’t already going to vote for anyone wearing a red jersey.
If Trump was running a Democrat, these pages would be filled with what a despicable person he is, but, now that he’s wearing a red jersey, he is the only person than can save the country. Meh.
I have.
I disagree that the term is only applicable when the cause is a lost one. All that matters is that the argument “I’m more virtuous than you” be insubstantial in some way, which the “Because I support X and you do not, I care more about real Americans than you do” argument always is.
People can and do differ in how much they care for real Americans, but disagreement over how to care for one’s countrymen is never, by itself, evidence that the disagreement comes from one side caring more.
By George, I think he’s got it!
^What the snake said.
I’m not a Trump fan, but I’m not quite sure I see the point to this post. Unless one supposes that Donald Trump is going to finish in third place, which I think is very unlikely, I don’t see why a person who wanted to vote for Trump would withhold his vote just because Trump is losing. If Gary Johnson or Evan McMullin were beating Trump, I would certainly say vote for Johnson or McMullin, but Trump is almost certainly the most likely person to actually become President now, other than Hillary Clinton.
My valid reason for withholding my vote from Trump is my concern that Trump would so damage the Republican Party and or conservatism that President Trump would be worse than President Hillary Clinton. Trump needs to persuade me that he will do more damage to progressivism than he is doing to conservatism.
OK, then, you did not understand this. A lot of us – even non-Trump-supporters – believe the little guy has legitimate claims and grievances that need addressing. Some seriously doubt, though, that supporting Trump is the right way to address them, even accounting for Hillary. It is the “because I make this gesture (in this case, supporting Trump – and likely demanding others do as well, or else be counted among the “uncaring”), I show that I care about this more than those not joining me” logic that makes it virtue-signalling.
An argument like, “I believe the little guy should be treated better, and I think Trump’s the man to do it,” is not by itself virtue signaling, since it leaves open the possibility that others may simply disagree over whether Trump is the man to do it.
I’ll give an example: IJ is, as far as I’m concerned, the firm on the side of the little guy and his economic rights.
One of the many battles IJ has fought is eminent-domain abuse, including Trump’s. It is not surprising, therefore, when an IJ’er regards Trump as actually evil. That doesn’t mean, though, that having this one opinion makes the IJ’er no longer on the side of the little guy. It just means the IJ’er disagrees – quite understandably, given his experience – that Trump is on the side of the little guy.
Don’t know if you follow football, but I can tell you, as a Seahawk fan, I’ve watched our team win and lose a lot of games in the fourth quarter. My football crazy husband used to get mad at me when I told him I only needed to watch the fourth quarter in each game. Right now, team Trump is in the third quarter, and we’re down ten points just like the Patriots were in 2015. The odds of the Patriots winning at that point were 4.5%, but win they did in one of the most exciting finishes I’ve ever seen. Trust me when I tell you it’s possible to win this game. It’s not over until it’s over.
Tom,
Damn it, Tom, you’re just a little too cold. Human life is never that calculable. You can write Trump off if you’d like. Just be careful you don’t write your own credibility off while you’re doing it.
Regards,
Jim
I lack your filial advantage. However, on June 10, 2016, on the HemmerTime podcast he said, when asked which of the two candidates would follow his advice about hitting the switch from defense to offense in foreign policy:
“I don’t think Hillary Clinton would go on offense,” and
“We simply have no idea what Donald Trump would do.”
I’d call that leaning Trump.
Will this be added to the new Code of Conduct?
Righto!
Sorry , Ms Rattlesnake, but “a lot of us” as you describe them applauded the U-Haul policy prescription.
Why should I be discouraged if some guy I know at IJ also believes that moving to opportunity is something worth encouraging? He is fighting for the little guy in either case. Aren’t you one of the guys always saying deeds should matter more than opinions?
Sure, some people would like to make mobility in this country easier – for instance, by working against artificial inflation of real property values – and they believe this mobility will help the little guy. Others do worry that encouraging more mobility will encourage the little guy to lose his roots. Either argument, whether it’s “we shouldn’t artificially obstruct the little guy’s mobility” or “we shouldn’t discount the value of the little guy’s roots” is an argument for the well-being of the little guy.
What I say to friends and acquaintances when they are stunned/pissed/flabbergasted after I tell them I am voting for Trump is:
It is a testament to how thoroughly corrupt and truly awful Hillary Clinton is as a human being, and how dreadful the thought of putting an all but convicted felon Hillary Clinton as the leader of the free world, that I would vote for Donald Trump rather than have this repugnant graft grifter and her sleazy sexual predator husband back in the White House for four more years.
At least Trump never stole the White House furniture, artwork and assorted furnishings.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121856&page=1
That usually shuts them up pretty good. (I’m sure they still think I’m nuts, but there is simply no way to defend the Clintons, they are absolutely hideous and should have been banned from polite society a long time ago …and everyone on the Left knows it, but just can’t admit it publicly)
As I’ve said several times on here before, I’m extremely grateful that my father disagrees with you on the benefits of the U-Haul policy prescription.
But, that is why we disagree on the benefits on central-planning the economy.
This post seems like a poorly thought out party game..”and you’re one too!”. The convoluted reasoning and the automatic defense of those always on the same team (“although he’s not here to defend himself, he probably meant that”) including by the moderators is making my head spin.
Isn’t there an easier way to imply equivalent bad faith to people who will vote for Trump, for any number of reasons, in the privacy of their voting booths on Election Day?
dog-whistle!