It's not inherently virtue signaling. More importantly, if this is your reaction to that paragraph, or if you think it makes anything she has written, is writing, or will write less credible, then that says more about your judgment.
You may think the line should not have been included. Fine. But being annoyed enough to respond this way, especially when the paragraph itself is criticizing Obama and calling the economics "crazy", is a negative signal.
“President Obama, who I wish was still president”
Why did you feel the need to throw this (presumably) virtue signaling into this otherwise very good piece?
All it does is make something like half your potential readers want to not read you or give you less credibility.
Because in this context I see no other purpose to this comment other than signaling that you think Orange Man Bad.
It's not inherently virtue signaling. More importantly, if this is your reaction to that paragraph, or if you think it makes anything she has written, is writing, or will write less credible, then that says more about your judgment.
You may think the line should not have been included. Fine. But being annoyed enough to respond this way, especially when the paragraph itself is criticizing Obama and calling the economics "crazy", is a negative signal.
Not trying to sound aggressive here.
Hey I have no problem with disagreement! 😀
But it seems to me the rest of your words undercut your first sentence.
While criticizing Obama, she felt the need to throw in the entirely unnecessary “but I like him better than Trump, who is Orange Man Bad.”
Yes, McCloskey is far far far better than leftists who just apologize for all Dem actions. And I praised the substance of the piece.
But my point remains that the comment was unnecessary *at best*.
[And imo wrong on overall economic policy, but that is a mostly different discussion.]