Opinion | Civic responsibility isn’t a social media contest

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

As Rochelle Olson noted in her recent column, President Donald Trump’s latest remarks about Somali Minnesotans prompted Sen. Jim Abeler to respond with a letter defending dignity and respect (“GOP Sen. Jim Abeler broke ranks to defend Somali Minnesotans. Will anyone join him?“ Dec. 9). His words mattered not only because of what he said, but how he chose to say them.

Although Abeler’s letter has now been widely reported, it didn’t start that way. He did exactly what is most effective — not public shame and blame, but one‑to‑one communication. Humiliation can sometimes feel good to inflict, but it rarely changes behavior.

This is a great example of how two things can be true at the same time: The letter showed the best way to try to change a colleague’s conduct (privately) and, once it went public, Abeler received well‑deserved credit. This distinction matters. We could use a reminder that a lack of letters posted on social media doesn’t mean people aren’t doing the work.

That detail highlights a tension in our civic life: the expectation that every wrong must be shouted down, instantly and loudly, in public. We live in a moment where silence is often interpreted as complicity, and where the measure of one’s values is too often reduced to the frequency of one’s posts.

I’ve been hearing from parents that this is a huge problem for young people: the expectation — often coming from peers — that they take a stand or post a position on every issue. I worry about that becoming the standard, especially for young people who might not be skilled at nuance and ambiguity. (Obviously that’s not the case with this particular situation. There’s no nuance in name-calling. But on issues of international conflict or competing budget priorities, there’s a lot.) So when adults set the standard, they inadvertently set the example.

But this also illustrates a deeper problem: outrage culture. We have built a civic environment where being offended is a constant posture, and where attention‑seekers thrive because we keep giving them airtime and eyeballs. Yes, what leaders say matters. But how we spend our time and attention matters too.

The best way to deal with attention‑seekers is not to amplify them but to ignore them. Their biggest fear is dropping out of the zeitgeist, so if you want to punish them, make them irrelevant. That means elevating the values we want to see — respect, dignity and integrity — instead of endlessly reacting to the conduct we deplore. Outrage may feel righteous in the moment, but it often feeds the very nonsense we wish to diminish.

Courage can take many forms. Sometimes it looks like a public statement. More often it looks like a private conversation, a quiet act of solidarity, or a refusal to join in disparagement. All of these matter.

What we should expect from our leaders, and from one another, is not endless commentary but consistent integrity. When words are spoken, they should be honest and respectful. When silence is chosen, it should not automatically be mistaken for indifference. And when action is taken, it should reflect the values we claim to hold.