Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.

The Ricochet Podcast
3 Whisky Happy Hour
Beyond the Polls
GLoP Culture
Heritage Explains
Chicks on The Right
3 Martini Lunch
Call Me Back - with Dan Senor
The American Idea
Federalist Radio Hour
The Erick Erickson Show
The Radio Free Hillsdale Hour
Daily Signal
Hillsdale Dialogues
Madison’s Notes
Mom Wars
What the Hell Is Going On
Parsing Immigration Policy
Freedom to Learn
Conservative Crossroads with Henry Olsen
The Learning Curve
The Conservative Woman’s Guide
Law Talk with Epstein, Yoo & Cooke
Not Dead Yet
Giving Ventures
Who Funds that?
The Back of the Book
The Kevin Roberts Show with Larry O’Connor
Gray Matters
The Report Card with Nat Malkus
The Glenn Show
The Libertarian
Martini Shot
The Dave Carter Show
The Powerline Show
In Dissent
Heard at Heritage
Smart Girl Politics
James Lileks’ The Diner
Case in Point: The Legal Show on the Hottest Legal Cases in Politics and Culture
JobMakers
One on One with Robert DoarRicochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
As many of y’all have heard or read by now, several elected Democrats are reporting that their constituents are increasingly clamoring that they (the elected Democrats) should be willing to get shot (hurt, suffer) as part of an effort to resist anything President Trump does.
Most of the existing commentary is concerned with how this clamor indicates a growing willingness of Democrats to engage in violence to achieve their preferences.
I note, however, that the call for elected representatives to “get shot” illustrates the propensity for leftists to expect others to bear the costs of the leftists’ wants.
The calls for elected representatives to be willing to “get shot” suggest that the people calling for this result are not willing to put themselves at such a risk. They are calling for others (their elected representatives) to put themselves at risk.
“I call on others to arrange to get themselves hurt so that I can claim my social virtue.”
This approach seems to me to so illustrate the typical leftist (Democrat) concept of, “I expect to show my virtue, but don’t expect me to pay the price of that virtue. Somebody else should pay for my virtue.”
We see this in various places, such as the expectations that a virtue (such as battery-powered cars) would be supported by tax credits paid for by other taxpayers.
I understand the attraction of getting others to pay for your virtue signals. But calling for violence by expecting others to get shot and to bleed so that I can claim to oppose the policies of the United States president seems rather cowardly.
Recommended by MembersThis post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet's members.
Discussion (3)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Contrast that with the civil rights movement of the 1960's when the leaders marched into billy clubs and fire hoses. We've come a long way, baby.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Oh man, I'm having a hard time arguing against this . . .
That's because it is cowardly . . .
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
You don't need inflation. They force us to use government money and then they lie about the inflation they cause. This makes people want socialism and populism.
You don't need the government to produce anything except actual public goods. Look up the definition.