Liberals "Going High" on the Other Side of the Red Line

[TygrBright]

I seriously doubt that Michelle Obama, who famously said "When they go low, we go high," is walking around scolding people like Stephanie Wilkinson for 'being rude' or 'descending to their level' or whatever they're calling it today on the liberals-must-be-nice fainting couch.

There is always a Red Line.

That being the term for "beyond this point, imputing moral ambiguity to something appalling is wishful thinking at best and much more probably sheer lazy-ass, conflict-avoidant enabling."

David Roberts explained it, on the Twitwaves (here it is threadified for those who avoid that particular scrum):

7. The most insidious thing about the descent into illiberalism is that it is incremental. There's no dramatic moment, no Rubicon. Every step seems bad, but only a little worse than the previous step. Smart autocrats are careful not to provide that moment.
...
9. When lefties have tried to draw a line, create a moment, force a reckoning, the establishment has united in a single voice to say: calm down. Let's be civil & work together. Let's not raise our voices or be shrill. Both sides do it. We're still in Normal Politics.
...
11. By jailing toddlers, Trump has potentially made a mistake. Instead of incremental illiberalism, this seems like a jump, something to shock the conscience. It is yet another opportunity for a Moment, a time for the rest of us to say: no. This is not normal. It's not ok.

The Forces of Evil (FoE) know this: If they can keep us arguing about where the Red Line is, and whether any particular action actually crosses it, they can a) generally escape any consequences of their actions; and b) get the liberals-must-be-nice fainting couch crowd to do their pushback for them. Thus the incrementalist tactics.

Above all else, they want to avoid a consensus coalescing around "THAT was the Red Line, and they have UNEQUIVOCALLY broad-jumped across it in a single bound."

Having done exactly that, they're now frantically looking to the fainting couch for cover.

So, listen up, please, to a few words about "going high" and what that is, once we're on the other side of the Red Line.

"Going high" is not:

> Acquiescing silently to evil.
> Refraining from identifying the evil of particular actions.
> Avoiding calling out those who participate, enable, or defend evil actions.
> Leaving wiggle room by focusing on the motivation of those participating, enabling or defending evil actions, rather than the evil effects of the actions.
> Scolding those who shine the light, identify evil, and/or resist evil for being 'uncivil' in doing so.

Is that much, at least, clear?

"Going high", therefore, can be identified by the opposite of what it is not:

> "Going high" includes speaking out when evil is present, and expressing opposition.
> "Going high" includes explaining the specific moral repugnance of the evil in question.
> "Going high" includes calling out those who participate, enable or defend evil.
> "Going high" includes demanding accountability for the damage of those evil actions.
> "Going high" includes refraining from discouraging those who would resist evil, unless their methods of resistance are also unequivocally evil.

And it is possible to do ALL of those things from a stance of maturity, clarity, and strength. Going high is exactly that:

Rather than letting moral outrage descend to tit-for-tat name calling and emotion-driven but childish retaliation, going high involves standing firm, stating clearly the evil, and calmly refusing to cooperate, condone, or remain silent in its favor.

Going high is demonstrating the moral principles that have been transgressed-- as when the crowd gathered at the New York airport to express love and support for the refugee children.

Going high can involve breaking rules or even breaking the law-- but doing so using the principles of nonviolent resistance.

Going high is calmly telling someone involved in evil, "You have done/enabled/defended this terrible thing. I will not allow you to escape the consequences of your action by pretending you have not done it. Nor will I enable your attempts to enjoy the normal pleasures available to decent human beings in public venues, untainted by the evil of your actions."

Going high is following through on that moral conviction, with firm serenity.

Yes, when they go low, we CAN go high.

Doing so is the best way to keep them from whining around the fainting couch, and in a media environment tainted by a mistaken belief that bothsiderism is journalistic objectivity and "civility" is defined as "inoffensiveness", it can be a potent tactic.

determinedly,
Bright

[FreepFryer]

1. Well said. (n/t)

[AlexSFCA]

2. she was politely asked to leave

just like that baker who refused to serve a gay couple, where was her outrage then? It’s not like she got insulted. The restaurant owner and staff are her employers, they pay her salary via taxes. They have a say whether to serve her.

[TygrBright]

3. Not only politely asked to leave, but comped her cheese plate. n/t

[OneGrassRoot]

4. EXCELLENT. Thank you. n/t

[PunkinPi]

5. Yes, and I would reiterate what civil rights icon John Lewis would call it, "good trouble".

Dr. King and others inspired me to get in what I call good trouble, necessary trouble. And I think we’re going to have generations for years to come that will be prepared to get in trouble, good trouble, necessary trouble. And lead us to higher heights. It’s a struggle that doesn’t last one day, one week, one month, one year. It is the struggle of a lifetime, or maybe many lifetimes.

http://time.com/5087349/why-getting-into-trouble-is-necessary-to-make-change/

[uponit7771]

6. We can go high and not enable sociopaths at the same time. There are text book responses to

... sociopaths and sycophants that are in power and public isolation is one of them.

[TygrBright]

7. Just so. We know what wins. But it takes patience, and discipline. n/t