Joyful vs. Diffident Victories
No matter how impressive a philosophy, ideology, system or modest set of prescriptions comes across as being, it should not be spoken of glowingly or fawned over in the privacy of its adherents' minds.
The antithesis of it should likewise not be spoken of disparagingly or demonized in the privacy of said minds. Tall orders, these two.
It's normal to ask why. Why shouldn't you feel the way you naturally do? Why pretend that our accurate or wise beliefs do something other than turn us into the protagonists, and that their inaccurate or insane beliefs do something other than turn them into the antagonists?
Since the why is so normalized and psychologically embedded, we might conclude that it is reasonable to run with it. So when a snarky meme comes along and points out that taking pride in one's beliefs is puerile, not only is it acceptable to ask why, it's downright imperative to do so. But no one asks why when called upon to acknowledge the circus that is Party Politics vis-à-vis their individual voting history.
No one with an IQ above room temperature lionizes their 2016 Clinton-Will-Do vote (anti-Trump vote), or their Trump-Will-Do/anti-Clinton vote. Only the electoral flat-earther engages in such lionization.
It is generally understood that the options are wretched, that party loyalty is gullibility, and that the more conscientious a voter is, the readier they will be to hold their nose in the booth and select one type of evil to stave off the eviler evils. Apparent anti-idealists love to point all of this out, especially when an inveterate idealist who sat out the last election gets all up in their grill about the impurity of it all.