How do I resist Trump without ruining my life?

Your mileage may vary is a consulting column that provides you with a new framework to think about through your moral dilemmas and philosophical issues. To submit a question, please email sigal.samuel@vox.com or fill in this question Anonymous form. Either way, if we choose your question, it will be anonymous. Here is the question of this week, condensed and edited for clarity:

I firmly believe that the struggle against authoritarianism is the most important issue of our time. My family immigrated to the United States from an authoritarian country, and I and some of my relatives were surprised and terrified that the same thing was coming to the United States.

I can do more to participate in pro-democracy resistance. I work in the public (rather than government) and can shape my work in a way that focuses more on Trump’s corruption and war on the American people. But I don’t think my job will be much different, just like I will be subject to the goals and punishments of the Trump administration, what is the point?

With our current path, more and more Americans are persecuted for doing things that the government doesn’t like, and I’m scared of the potential consequences of myself and my colleagues. It’s a collective action problem, because no one’s action will stop Trump and Musk, but if we all tell ourselves that the risk is not worth getting democracy, no one will do anything. How can I browse through this dilemma, morally, rationally without destroying my life?

Dear Reason Resist,

Growing up in the Jewish community, my childhood was filled with stories about the Holocaust. Obviously, I heard horrifying stories, but also stories about those who inspired people who rejected Nazis, such as the “Justic Gentiles” who hid Jews in their homes, facing great personal risks. My kids are obsessed with this question: if I were in their place, would I have the same courage as them? Would I hide someone in the attic?

I’ve been thinking about this since January 20th. Not because I think the United States today is the same as Nazi Germany, but just because many of us want to know how far we are going to stretch out now. How do we deal with the tension between personal safety and moral responsibility? Morally speaking, living in extraordinary times is more risky than we usually risk?

I think the moral requirements of the universe suddenly change in such an era. Instead, I think that eras like this have opened their eyes, to the reality that has always existed: We are not only atomized people, but as in the case of Western modernity. We are interdependent. Our destiny is linked to the destiny of others, so to truly pay attention to ourselves and our own family, we must also pay attention to a wider collective.

Although the special few are always adjusted to Buddhist monks, such as Buddhist monks, or extreme kind people – most of us can see reality in this way only when tragic attacks. As author Larissa MacFarquhar wrote in her book Drowning by strangers: Impossible idealism, drastic choice and impulse to help:

In wartime, or so devastating in crisis, similar to war, such as earthquakes or hurricanes – the responsibility for obligations goes far beyond the boundaries of peacetime. In wartime, leaving your family for your career is dedicated, not unnatural. During wartime, the line between family and strangers became weak, as the responsibility for themselves encompasses all those on the same side…

This is the difference between a kind person and a commoner: for a kind person, it is always wartime. They are always responsible for strangers-they always feel strangers, such as fellow men in the war, are their own people.

Whether it is war, earthquake or attack on democracy, dramatic events can lead to a shift in perspective, from me Mobiya to a more telescopic vision. We see ourselves as part of a larger story of humanity, which transcends not only national boundaries but generations.

I suspect that’s why we all appreciate the righteous Gentiles – even if Jews take over Jews, they sometimes put their children in danger, which is usually what we usually think is morally cunning (in fact, this is so opposed to the wiring of parents that I wouldn’t blame parents for not taking themselves to do it). They look to their children at the world they will inherit. What are the benefits of bringing your child into a morally bankrupt world? If you do, what about modeling them?

Seeing bigger stories can inspire us to act on authoritarianism, even in risky situations. Yes, it may be scary to stick our necks out now – as you said: “I’m scared of the potential consequences of myself and my colleagues,” but remember, authoritarians think You feel too scared to resist. This is how they grow Expected obedience And how they gain strength over time.

At the moment, for most of us, the risks are actually relatively small. Take action immediately and you may lose your job and may even make the organization funded, resulting in more work. That’s not nothing. But unless you are an undocumented immigrant under Trump administration policies or especially a vulnerable immigrant, you are currently unlikely to be deported, imprisoned, or physically harm the way those who retreat in more authoritarian countries are.

If you don’t take action now, the United States will be fine Become A more authoritarian country. If this happens, people in the future may indeed be irresistible without extreme consequences. This is the argument that boycotts now, and you can do it with relatively low risk.

However, this is not an argument that shows nobility but a reckless one. This is the argument for strategic action.

Consider the story of Queen Esther in the Hebrew Bible. When she learns about the plot of destroying her people, Jewish, she faces a terrible choice: she can go to her husband, the King of Persia, to beg for her protection – which means risking her own life, as the king will kill anyone close to him without being summoned – or she can keep silent to keep her own attitude to protect herself.

At first, she told her cousin Mordecai that she could not just go over the king and speak out her own thoughts. That’s not the Queen’s way of working. But he responded to a powerful re-joining: “Who knew this was a time like this, and you were started by the queen?” What he did there was triggering the change of perspective-making her no longer regarding herself as an individual and starting to see herself as someone who was always going to look for the collective.

Then “Who knows?” is also a challenge. In the case of moral crisis, people often feel that “my job will not be very different” – so why bother? What Mordecai said: Who knows! Your work may not make a difference – but you do not knowso you have to try something.

It works: Esther behavior. But please pay attention to her behavior. She didn’t just rushed to the king immediately and told him to save the Jews. First, she built a support network and developed a multi-part strategy. She dressed up as nine, making herself attractive to the king, so he might want to keep her around. She invites the king and his Vizier to a party where she brews and eats. The next day, she invited them to another party. Gradually, through the influence of meticulous planning, she reveals the truth and makes her ask.

Esther is what Dutch historian Rutger Bregman might call a noble winner. exist Moral ambitionBregman urges readers to be more ambitious about the kindness they can do for the world. When he points to historical examples of people standing up for the right thing, he points out that some are “losers of the nobles” – they take a personal stand, but have little impact. Think about this Famous Photos to a group of Germans who pay tribute to Hitler and single men who refuse to pay tribute.

“He’s on the right side of history, but he’s not making history,” Bregman wrote. “If you really want to change things, someone like Rosa Parks is a better role model.”

The park is a noble winner. Not only did she decide to refuse to give up her seat on the bus in Montgomery, Alabama, in her rage moment. Instead, she spent years quietly participating in the civil rights movement and researching protest strategies. She plans to refuse to give up her seat. An action team called the “Political Commission of Women” strategically portrays her as a friendly tailor and stale heroine, a Mirquit who was enough to make white Americans behind – and launched a call to crack down on the moment she was arrested. Careful planning and collaboration pays off: they not only gained fame, but also achieved concrete victories.

You can also be strategic. Instead of impulsive and alone, you can build a support network by connecting with colleagues inside and outside the organization. If you are an employee of a nonprofit, you can organize within the union and push them to take a specific position. If you are an educator, you can coordinate with other schools. If you are a journalist, you can contact other journalists to somehow cover up the consensus of news events, for example, calling a purge called purge. The key is to connect with others and build strength together.

There is also a word about those righteous Gentiles. After the Holocaust, psychologists began to study them to find out what made them brave enough to agree to cover up the Jews, while most people lived with tyranny. Maybe they were friends with the Jews before the war? Maybe they have spare room or extra savings to hide? Maybe some people are just associated with selfless personality?

No. Psychologists found that none of these factors changed. Instead, as Bregman says in his book:

It turns out that there is a situation that almost determines everything. New analysis of the data… shows that when this situation is met, almost everyone takes action – 96% to be exact.

What’s going on? Simple: You must be asked. Those who are asked to help at risk are almost always saying yes.

What asks each other and acts together is how we move unjust systems. So go ahead. Contact someone. ask.

Bonus: What I’m reading