Megan McArdle has me confused. In this post, she argues eloquently for moral integrity even in the face of apparently insurmountable public opposition:
I have a different intuition, which is that if you want everyone to do something, you are morally bound to do it whether or not they follow suit. I am rethinking that–but I have a sense that those sorts of illogical bourgeois committments [sic] to virtue are precisely what allow us to overcome collective action problems without coercion.
While here, she basically tells us to forget about virtue and follow the masses:
That’s not to say that you should have a preference between Democrats and Republicans–frankly, these days, it feels a lot like “So, by which of the plagues of Egypt would you like to be consumed?” But if you do, you should vote for that candidate, rather than making an expressive vote which could put your last choice into office.
So which is it Megan? Should I buy compact fluorescents and vote for Ron Paul, or should I put an Obama sticker on my SUV?