JMA-PSOS

Two days ago, on a "progressive" FB group, I shared (Australian blogger) Caitlin Johnstone (CJ)'s very hard-nosed and narrow opinion on Harris v Trump re: Israel and Palestine with this preamble: "This is an unpopular opinion, but one that I endorse 100%". During the ensuing discussion I even added some context for my POV. The gist of CJ's opinion was this (with the second part about Trump automatically null and void in a "progressive" group IMO):

If you want to vote for Harris, then vote for Harris. But do it with the full knowledge that you are voting for someone who has spent a year supporting genocidal atrocities [...] At the very least have the decency to honor the mountains of victims who will suffer in ways you can’t even imagine under a Harris administration by casting your vote mournfully [...]

If you want to vote for Trump, then vote for Trump. But do it with the understanding that he is being backed by some of the most virulent Zionists on earth and will throw his weight behind Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Don’t lie to yourself that he’s going to end the wars and fight the deep state.

The responses/comments to my post fell into a few categories (left column) and here are my responses (right column):

Responses/comments	Responses
1. CJ is one of <<"full-time professional anti-imperialists" who praise Assad and Putin and blame the US for every evil in the world.>> CJ was/is on Assad's and Putin's payroll (via RT News). CJ did not condemn the Chechen Wars (or "Putin whose complete and total destruction of Chechnya is on par with anything Israel has done"). Due to all of these, it was heavily implied that I and others like me are useful idiots.	Don't shoot the messenger, as the message still holds despite all of CJ's flaws (i.e. read the above quoted paragraphs as if someone anonymous wrote them and judge whether they still hold true or not).
2. I am going to waste my vote or, worse, I'll convince others to do that or, worst, vote for Trump.	I did not intend to suggest or try to convince others to throw their vote away or vote for Trump and if you see it as such, you have very little confidence in your fellow "progressives" (who had a very low defection rate in 2016 even after the DNC email leak scandal).
3. Harris as a VP does not hold real power, so she can't really be blamed for US policy and any complicity in Israel-Hamas War.	A decent human being is at least partially complicit just like a crime witness who does not report it is guilty in the eyes of the law (obviously of a lesser crime than the perpetrator).
4. Always pick the lesser of two evils while more-or-less ignoring any egregious human rights violations (done by Democrats) as long as it's against non-Americans and as long as Democrats do what's right for Americans (only) because they are much better than Republicans who tear everything down and divide (Americans).	If you think that one American life is much more important than a non-American life, then I can see why you believe that.
5. CJ's opinion is idealistic.	I would call the opinion a moral one, not idealistic as it does acknowledge the reality of choosing the lesser of two evils.
6. This whole thread is laughable or funny.	Please do consult a psychiatrist, have a long look in the mirror or at least take a long break from social media as your capacity for empathy seems to be heavily impaired.
7. Harris is heads and shoulders above Trump on her abortion record and plans.	I agreed and admitted so, with the qualifier that CJ's opinion only considered Harris v Trump on Israel policy.

Summary

If you fear that sharing on a "progressive" private group the opinion of one Australian journalist (with a pro-Putin/Assad and an anti-US/Israel agenda) who points out the whitewashing of US complicity in genocide and that any American should feel dirty about it, is either invalid because of the deep flaws of the person holding the mirror or that it will tip the balance in Trump's favor, the Democrats are in deep trouble not just this time around but in the future as well as it will require a lot of cognitive dissonance and whitewashing to support deeply flawed individuals and policies at the highest levels of US government (while admittedly these individuals and policies might deliver some incremental non-negative change elsewhere within the US, e.g. abortion rights, public healthcare, minimum/living wage, union and job protections, minority human rights).

Within the Democratic Coalition, Pew Research found in 2021 that 12% are Progressive Left and 16% are Outsider Left. If you consider that 33% of Establishment Liberals (which are 23% of total Dems) voted for (progressive) Warren/Sanders, I will argue that the total progressive composition of Democratic voters was 35.6% which is much higher than I expected.

I take issue with the whole baggage packed in the beloved conservative sneering accusation of "virtue signaling". Without mincing words, I find this particular accusation divisive and cynical (at a minimum) most of the time.

Let's unpack this loaded label. Back in 2017, Mr Warner made an attempt at unpacking it, and quickly veered off-course into the Orangeland crooked mirror rabbit-/black-hole universe. Here is a good excerpt from Mr Warner's preamble:

How about the guys that wrote this? “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that they are endowed by their Creator with unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

Virtue signaling up the hoo-hah! Self-evident truths? Who do these bewigged smartypants think they are?

Better attempts come from wikipedia (with the side note below):

Psychologists Jillian Jordan and David Rand argued that virtue signalling is separable from genuine outrage towards a particular belief, but in most cases, individuals who are virtue signalling are, in fact, simultaneously experiencing genuine outrage. Linguist David Shariatmadari argued in The Guardian that the very act of accusing someone of virtue signalling is an act of virtue signalling in itself.

An interesting history of the label is its definition on wikipedia which was modified over 250 times in the past 4 years and lost its pejorative mention which this 2019 blog entry pointed out:

[...] a pejorative for the conspicuous expression of moral values. Academically, the phrase relates to signalling theory to describe a subset of social behaviors that could be used to signal virtue—especially piety among the religious. In recent years, the term has become more commonly used as a pejorative by commentators to describe empty or superficial support of certain political views and also used within groups to criticize their own members for valuing appearance over action