Moral Compromise Cost Drives Citizen Resistance to Government

Key Quotes

"I think there are situations and there are people who find that the psychic cost of moral compromise is greater than the cost of acting right that for them to live in harmony with themselves and with their values they have to do things that are scary and they feel like they're not paying a greater price than they would be if they just sacrificed their values."

Masha Gessen explains that the courage to resist stems from a point where the internal cost of compromising one's values outweighs the fear of taking action. Gessen suggests that for some individuals, maintaining their integrity and living in accordance with their beliefs is more important than avoiding personal risk. This internal calculus drives their willingness to confront difficult or frightening situations.

"It is strikingly easy to shrug off one's responsibility for the country where one pays taxes contributes to the public conversation and at least nominally has the right to vote if that country is the United States it seems one can just say 'not in my name' and continue to enjoy the wealth and the freedom of movement one's citizenship confers."

Masha Gessen highlights the ease with which individuals in the United States can disengage from their government's actions. Gessen points out that the privileges of citizenship, such as paying taxes and having a voice, can create a disconnect, allowing people to distance themselves from national policies by simply stating "not in my name." This detachment allows them to continue benefiting from their citizenship without confronting moral compromises.

"You know the United States you know um in some cases the political opposition has let us down but there is a political opposition the society as a whole is not behind this trumpian project you know so people who are standing up to it don't necessarily experience themselves as marginal and so a lot of the people that i wrote about i mean they're very brave and i'm not trying to minimize that in any way but in some ways it's like they just hadn't gotten the memo about capitulation."

Michelle Goldberg contrasts the situation in the United States with that in Israel, suggesting that the presence of a political opposition and a society not fully aligned with a particular political project allows for a different experience of resistance. Goldberg notes that those standing up to such a project may not feel as marginalized. She observes that some individuals she wrote about, while brave, seemed to act out of an inherent sense of civic duty rather than a feeling of being forced into opposition.

"I think that having a very public display of this is not where society is going being able to say this is one of the biggest demonstrations in american history and it's not just in new york and la and washington dc it's all over the country and people who might have otherwise felt alone in their communities who might have been like am i the only one who is horrified by this sees that they're not and then that translates into other kinds of activism."

Michelle Goldberg emphasizes the impact of public demonstrations in shaping societal perception and fostering further activism. Goldberg argues that large-scale protests serve as a visible signal that a particular direction is not representative of society's will. This public display, she explains, can embolden individuals who feel isolated in their views, showing them they are not alone and encouraging them to engage in other forms of activism.

"The secret of all activism nobody can act alone activism has to be more nurturing than it is costly that's the only way that it is sustainable."

Masha Gessen asserts that the sustainability of activism hinges on its ability to foster connection and support among participants. Gessen posits that individuals cannot act effectively in isolation and that activism must provide a nurturing environment to endure. This emphasis on community and mutual support, Gessen suggests, is crucial for long-term engagement.

"I feel like one of my jobs as a very good immigrant is to reassure people there's no science to it there's no way to know whether it's the right time my parents made the decision to leave the soviet union which if they had known that it was going to collapse seven or eight years later they wouldn't have done it and on the other hand i know people who have gone back to their country because they thought well surely it can't last forever and 10 or 20 years later had to leave again right we just can't know."

Masha Gessen reflects on the uncertainty inherent in decisions about emigration and returning to one's home country. Gessen, drawing from personal experience as an immigrant, reassures others that there is no definitive formula for determining the "right" time to leave or stay. She illustrates this with examples of parents who left a country that later collapsed and others who returned only to face a later necessity to emigrate again, highlighting the unpredictable nature of such choices.