Over at Bloomberg, I argue against the bipartisan view I call “binarism“: the idea that voters have a strong obligation to choose between the two major-party presidential candidates or top two candidates, no matter how dismal they are. Very often choosing between the two parties’ candidates makes sense; and of course many voters in this election are finding that their consciences can easily place them behind Trump or Clinton. My argument is that those voters who regard both of them as unfit for the presidency should not think that they have to pick one in the voting booth.

But some Trump supporters have a very negative reaction when they hear conservatives say that they cannot in good conscience support Trump. A recent column by Roger L. Simon struck the note I have in mind:

If I were writing my book on moral narcissism today, I would have to add a chapter on the NeverTrumpers, because — like it or not — their stance, while once idealistic, at this point seems rather too substantially based on self-regard. They want to have “clean hands” to avoid any tarnishing by the unseemly Mr. Trump.

Simon also suggests that these NeverTrumpers look down on Trump supporters, are trying to protect their public profiles, are refusing to reconsider their views, and have not “thought about the future of the country and their families, and made an educated, though not always perfect, choice, which they stuck with.” (Yes, Simon is criticizing anti-Trump conservatives for refusing to change their minds while also praising Trump supporters for not changing their minds. He lets one paragraph go between these two arguments.)

I think this kind of argument about NeverTrumpers fails as a matter of both logic and rhetoric. I think, for one thing, that Simon is making an unfair generalization to say that anti-Trump conservatives disdain Trump supporters. Some do: It’s an attitude I’ve criticized repeatedly. But those who do are often moved from their strong opposition to Trump to that disdain, not the other way around. These anti-Trumpers often unfairly take the bigotry of some Trump supporters to be typical of all Trump supporters. Simon is taking the most obnoxious expression of anti-Trump sentiment to reflect the view of everyone who holds it.

Simon is far from alone in seeing anti-Trump conservatives as being engaged in “moral preening” or (as a recent email I got put it) in “trying to salve your consciences.” This kind of argument almost always leaves me cold because of its circularity. If I have reasoned incorrectly about what is the right thing to do, then that is the problem; and the counterargument should try to correct me. If I have reasoned correctly, on the other hand, then following my conscience is the right thing to do. Even if I am right, of course, I should not accuse people who disagree with me of having no consciences, being generally morally inferior, etc. I should not, that is, suggest that only one side of an argument has “thought about the future of the country and their families,” and so on. If that’s not moral narcissism, I don’t know what is.

Simon’s last comment repeats the word “please” three times in urging NeverTrumpers to reconsider their position. Fair enough, but it points to the rhetorical failure of this kind of argument. Because what Simon is saying is this: Please, I implore you, vote for Trump, you narcissistic snobs.