The Ultimate Virtue Signal

So, Joe Biden got away with allowing millions of mostly unvetted illegal aliens to cross our sovereign border from 2021 to early 2024, when the valve was finally closed, at least partway. During that time, to add insult to injury, many were shipped in the dead of night out to locations that would never, under normal circumstances, accept them. After all, resources are limited in most places, and to expect local communities to budget and pay for the healthcare, housing, education, and other assistance for hundreds of people who are not legal citizens is expecting a lot. As the Stephen Colberts of the world continue spouting off about how horrific it is to see ICE agents actually trying to do their jobs, I’ve wondered if he would ever put his considerable fortune where his big mouth is and take on the expenses of some of these “poor, unfortunate people” if they were dropped in his front yard. Somehow, I doubt that would ever happen. Yet, the virtue-signaling on how terrible ICE is and how innocent the poor illegals are continues uninterrupted.

Has anyone asked what is motivating the people protesting in the streets about what ICE is doing? We expect support for this behavior from celebrities and most Democrat politicians who do nothing to disguise their utter contempt and hatred for all things Trump. But do the street protesters have genuine sympathy for the illegal immigrants, or is it just their latest excuse to claim “Trump is a fascist?” To answer this question, let’s look at a historical example of another action that painted America and its government in an unfavorable light – the Vietnam War.

Granted, there were many reasons why the Vietnam War was unpopular. The rules of combat were micromanaged by civilian leadership, including the commander-in-chief, so that, in essence, the U.S. was fighting with one arm figuratively tied behind its back. Across college campuses nationwide, the seeds of dissent were planted by the threat of the draft, Marxist-leaning student organizations that seized on this opportunity to make America look bad, and media coverage. For instance, the supposedly objective Walter Cronkite came out against the war in February 1968 at the height of American involvement, a major reason why Lyndon Johnson decided not to run for another term as president. Some of the same divisions between liberals and conservatives we see today were created by this long, drawn-out war. What was often overlooked was the purpose behind our involvement, and that was to contain the spread of communism in North Vietnam while allowing South Vietnam to remain relatively free and independent. By painting us as the villains, the virtue signallers gave communist leader Ho Chi Minh’s murderous regime (the true villain) cover, and some actually deified him as the head of a glorious revolution against the American “imperialists.” It should sound familiar, as history, especially bad history, has a way of repeating itself. 

Because of the way the Vietnam War was fought, and the way it was protested and reported about (small groups of radical students were made to seem like a majority in media coverage), the easiest position anyone could take was to say they were against the war. That simple statement would provide cover and acceptance for a host of other activities – including sometimes violent protests, illicit drug use, and so on. I don’t believe that Senator Ted Kennedy remained politically viable after his Chappaquiddick disaster simply because he was a Kennedy – his antiwar stance no doubt helped in that regard also.

So, were the antiwar protesters motivated by a genuine desire for peace? Although I’m still a Beatles fan, I have no problem criticizing the ultimate peacenik John Lennon since he, too, blamed America (and by extension, the UK) for the war without any mention of Ho Chi Minh’s role in causing the conflict. This, then, was a largely symbolic "virtue signal" on Lennon’s part. Certainly, draft-age males were highly motivated to protest the war in the hope that they would not be drafted and exposed to the dangers of combat. But what motivated others to be so strongly antiwar, to the point of being against America? Of course, former President Richard Nixon was as much of a lightning rod for liberal/progressive contempt then as Donald Trump is now, but was that alone what motivated the crazy fringes of the protest movements, both then and now? Maybe, but I have to believe something else is underlying this over-the-top tantrum on behalf of immigrants that the protesters should see as a threat to their jobs (assuming, of course, that they have actual jobs besides professional agitators). Perhaps Kash Patel’s FBI, which has promised a “follow-the-money” investigation to get to the root of who’s financing the Antifa protesters, will finally shed some light on the true motivations of these people. But I’m not counting on it.