“Remember, most experts agree that President Obama, regardless of any good intentions, probably violated the Constitution when he created DACA, thus handing the next president, no matter who it was, a political wet cat in a sack.”
The Urban Dictionary’s top two definitions for Virtue Signalling are as follows:
# 1. “To take a conspicuous but essentially useless action ostensibly to support a good cause but actually to show off how much more moral you are than everybody else.”
# 2. “Saying you love or hate something to show off what a virtuous person you are, instead of actually trying to fix the problem.”
They even provide an example:
Jane: “Wow! I hate Fox News! They’re so evil and they hate women!”
John: “Why don’t you actually do something instead of just virtue signaling about it?”
Jane: “OMG that would be WAAAAAAY too much work.”
Leftists’ penchant for holding up every political notion they espouse as virtuous, while condemning any morsel of your political advocacy as “hate speech,” could easily be added to the above definition.
But the left’s frivolous relationship with virtue extends beyond signaling their goodness. Perhaps Virtue Projecting would be an appropriate term. You see examples of this when the left imbues folks such as the poor, minorities, “homeless,” and illegal immigrants with unearned virtue simply for being, well, poor, homeless, or illegally in the U.S.
Does anyone remember when or how being unproductive or irresponsible became a virtue? I read a story recently about a new government program designed for address-less petty criminals in one of America’s largest cities—I’m sure it’s happening in others as well. The leftist disease seems quite contagious.
Surprise, surprise – it seems courts are issuing warrants for the arrest of people without good mailing addresses, who also break the law and then also fail to appear in court—who knew? The homeless petty criminal, apparently, is society’s newest victim class to be imbued with unmerited virtue. More virtuous victims!
Isn’t there inherent virtue in being a productive member of society?
These folks are merely accused of “minor” crimes, so… I mean, don’t dare argue that the people who were violated by trespassers on their premises, theft of their stuff, or property damage are the true victims. Hell, no! After all, these crime victims are productive, tax-paying, and responsible people—not exactly the new Democrat (social justice) constituency.
Now, I will not get into the weeds on the myriad of reasons people live on the streets. There are those who are truly having tough times. But, in my experience, those folks are rare and tend to fix their situations sooner or later. The real issue, according to objective stats, is most folks on the streets are drug and alcohol abusers or have mental issues. And these conditions are not mutually exclusive. Some people experience a combination of the three difficulties, each to various degrees.
It’s hard to hold the more significantly mentally ill responsible for their disorders or behaviors, and I have a great deal of experience with these folks. But, again, for the sake of this discussion, let’s stay toward the general population.
Generally, people live on the streets because they’ve conducted their lives in such a manner that they can’t or won’t take responsibility for. It seems they’d rather live at the edge of society and exist off the scraps of the productive through begging or stealing. Even without judgement, where is the inherent virtue in this existence? Now, there is virtue in overcoming such circumstances, but not in spiraling into self-inflicted social and emotional turmoil.
Isn’t there inherent virtue in being a productive member of society? People who take care of themselves and their families, take their responsibilities seriously, and who do not commit crimes are virtuous—at least in those realms. To the contrary, being an unproductive drain on society, for whatever reason, does not have inherent virtue attached to it. However, you’d be hard-pressed to prove that if you listen to many of today’s virtue signaling leftists.
I can understand having sympathy for people in legitimately bad circumstances, even if it’s partially or wholly of their own making. We all make mistakes, and virtue comes in how we handle and overcome them.
Leftists seem to have made an industry of conjuring virtue out of nothing and then assigning it where it has not been earned. Leftists, apparently, possess virtue in abundance, they are so much better than you that they even have a surplus to bestow on others—but not you. No, not on those who deserve it but, oddly, on those who don’t—at least, not simply for being poor, a minority, homeless, or illegally in America.
The left has bestowed virtue on vagrants and illegal immigrants. I can understand having sympathy for people in legitimately bad circumstances, even if it’s partially or wholly of their own making. We all make mistakes, and virtue comes in how we handle and overcome them.
And while I don’t condone it, I can empathize with people who have entered our country illegally, if they’ve done so to make a better life for their families and themselves. But automatically covering illegal immigrants with a virtue blanket seems a step too far.
We have to ask why the left apply virtue to the unproductive and lawbreakers, but seem to have contempt for the productive? It’s as if they feel all unproductive people are unlucky and productive folks have simply been lucked out.
Democrats used to represent working Americans and were concerned with how they could improve their constituents’ lives. Not all that many years ago, Democrat leaders like Sen. Schumer and Sec. Clinton were decrying illegal immigration—in those terms. Today, these and other Democrats seem to care more about people in our country illegally than about hard working American citizens and legal immigrants with whom the illegals compete for jobs. If not, then why the hyper-emphasis on DACA and “sanctuary cities” when the U.S. has so many other pressing issues impacting its citizens and legal residents?
We actually have mayors of American cities, such as in Oakland, California, vowing to go to jail to protect illegal aliens. When was the last time you saw a mayor make a similar vow in support of Americans? We also have California’s top cop warning American business owners in California not to comply with federal immigration law or assist federal law enforcement agents. This is just nuts!
The 800,000 DACA folks deserve special consideration as their being here is not their fault. However, isn’t it prudent to take our time and get the fix correct? We can’t forget that someone (their parents) broke U.S. immigration law, which does not automatically mitigate the illegal status of their children, regardless of how genuinely sympathetic they are. Whatever fix the government arrives at for DACA must take into consideration avoiding the creation of another similar circumstance in the future. A circumstance that would create another “crisis.” Isn’t this prudent?
Remember, most experts agree that President Obama, regardless of any good intentions, probably violated the Constitution when he created DACA, thus handing the next president, no matter who it was, a political wet cat in a sack.
Now, President Trump is being criticized for not rushing to “fix” DACA, and Democrats just shut down the federal government as a part of their childish, political tantrum. Republicans want a solution that will actually solve the problem and not just kick the “Dreamers” down the road, so they can be used again and again for political expediency.
Back to virtue signaling and projecting. We’re now seeing the sprinkling of holy virtue on the masses. In some cities, special homeless courts are popping up. These courts, once again putting social justice above equal justice, seek to treat a class of people according to their circumstances (government-authorized victimhood) rather than according to their actions, committing “petty” crimes.
Kind of makes you wonder why so-called petty crimes are crimes at all? Why doesn’t the left give up the pretense and go for what they seem to truly want and just legalize crime—or, perhaps, start by decriminalizing it? Would sure save the cops a lot of time and wasted energy. In fact, why have cops at all? Oh, right. The left still needs cops to enforce its socialist laws.
The argument is: if you commit a crime while you don’t have a permanent mailing address, you won’t be able to receive any court correspondence advising you when you have to be in court. Further, failure to show in court could result in a warrant being issued for your arrest, which you also won’t receive notice of because you have no permanent address. Such is the vicious cycle for homeless folks who commit crimes.
After reading about this program, I have to ask the leftists supporting this effort, where is your respect for victims? In a thorough article written in the Seattle Weekly (link above), Melissa Hellmann mentions many “reasons” (excuses homeless folks offer for not making court appearances), that I know from experience are true. To clarify, it’s true they actually use these excuses, not that the excuses are true. However, you’d swear she’s writing about children and not adults who should be shown more respect as people who are responsible for themselves.
Aside from the significantly mentally ill folks, and despite the true struggles people endure in the grip of alcohol and drug addiction, they must still be held accountable for their actions. It shows a human being disrespect to refuse to acknowledge their contributions to their despair for which they are suffering the expected consequences. Portions of the articles on the subject that focus on the crime note the crimes are “petty” crimes related to homelessness such as loitering and vagrancy. However, dig deeper and you’ll find the crimes also include plenty of assault, theft, trespass, and domestic violence, all of which don’t seem all that petty to the victims.
The writer interviews several homeless petty criminals and seems to accept their excuses for failing to appear in court at face value. Well, I rarely arrested anyone for a warrant who didn’t swear he or she didn’t know about it regardless of whether they had a permanent address.
And what happened when the county held a sort of “amnesty” day for homeless folks to take care of these warrants? Only about twenty people showed up. And word “on the street,” especially of an amnesty, travels as fast as any other human grapevine. The social justice system has so disrespected this group of people, they must wonder why they should comply with anything they’re responsible for.
To leftist government, these folks are virtual children who shouldn’t be held accountable for their actions. Don’t worry, “mommy and daddy government” will take care of you—well, just as long as you vote for us in the next election. Not having a permanent address may indemnify you from your responsibility to the court, but it won’t prevent you from casting a vote in King County, Washington.
Democrat-run voting in Washington State is not a right, or even a privilege; for Democrats, it’s an art form. Or maybe it’s political alchemy – turning election losses into wins by mysterious means—finding boxes of Democratic votes under desks and in closets are not unheard of here. For more on this, read John Fund’s book Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy (2004). But that’s another story.
As long as leftists insist on letting us know just how good they are and just how bad we are, virtue signaling and virtue projecting will flourish. I’m just not sure I see a lot of virtue in considering yourself better than other people because of your political viewpoint, all while shutting down others with whom you disagree. Where exactly is the virtue in that?
