On virtue and vice signalling

I don’t know which is worse: virtue or vice signalling.

U.S. President Donald Trump is the consummate vice signaller who ostentatiously targets any group or issue he thinks will help him retain political power. Vice signalling is a form of rage farming that promotes controversial views which appear to be tough-minded, uncompromising and authoritarian.

During his second term, Trump has set his sights on immigrants, government employees, medical science, women’s rights, transgender athletes, crime and countries like Venezuela.

And if nothing else, Trump knows his audience.

Many Americans love alarmist rhetoric. They are enamoured with an approach that says their rights are being trampled by an unreasonable minority of people. Self-righteous moralism is their raison d’etre.

It is not surprising, therefore, that we are starting to see vice signalling take hold here in Canada. A case in point would be David Frum’s recent article in The Atlantic, Good Intentions Gone Bad, in which he argues that recognizing Indigenous land rights is a huge mistake threatening Canadian economic growth. He blames our courts, which he believes are “inventing new obstacles to development.”

The reaction to Frum’s article has been mixed.

On one hand, the vice-signalling audience has bought what Frum is saying hook, line and sinker. They are outraged, believing that as a country we are now economically doomed.

One headline I saw in the National Post read “Virtue-signalling devotion to reconciliation will not end well.” Is private property in Canada secure, they ask? And what about the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP)? If UNDRIP becomes the law, will Indigenous Peoples be entitled to everything and have other people pay for it?

On the other hand, much of the reaction to Frum’s piece reflects the worst of virtue signalling.

Typically, virtue signalling involves expressing moral virtues, ethical principles and beliefs through the media, with the intent to demonstrate one’s good character.

Unfortunately, virtue signalling doesn’t always work this way.

There is for example a certain arrogance and hypocrisy associated with virtue signalling. Although they like to extol their virtues, in a classic ad hominem argument, virtue signallers attack and disparage the messenger.

It is as if virtue signallers get intoxicated with the exuberance of their own invective. Frum’s ears must be burning as those responding to his article have called him all kinds of names ranging from moron, racist, white supremacist, colonialist, fascist and neocon warmonger, to name a few.

Virtue signalling can also be facile. It can rely on a superficial analysis of what is a complicated issue. Reconciliation is a complex issue. It is one that will be solved through good communication, consultation and collaboration. It is certainly not an issue that will respond well to name calling and simplistic analysis.

A final criticism is that virtue signallers are often full of what has been referred to as cheap talk. When virtue signallers are asked what they would pay to get what is needed, or what they would give up, the question is usually met with silence.

They prefer virtuous remarks over tough choices.

None of the responses I read to Frum’s article engaged in any kind of economic analysis related to his assertion that reconciliation, and in particular land claims, may serve as a disincentive to economic growth.

The reality is that if we want a just and equitable society, we need both economic growth and reconciliation.

We also need to acknowledge that governments are not bottomless pits of money.

Indeed, if Frum’s article highlights anything it is that we need to spend less time vice and virtue signalling and more time determining what our priorities are for utilizing our limited resources.

Mac Horsburgh writes from Winnipeg.