Choosing the High Road in Low Moments
When they go low, we go high. — Michelle Obama
Origin and Intended Message
Michelle Obama popularized the line during the 2016 Democratic National Convention, framing it as both a moral compass and a tactical guide in a bruising campaign season. Rather than sanctioning retaliation, she urged listeners to anchor responses in dignity, truth, and empathy. The phrase condensed a discipline: decline the invitation to spiral, and instead redirect energy toward constructive aims. By elevating standards when provoked, the speaker signals confidence in values that do not depend on the opponent’s behavior. This opening gesture sets the tone for a broader civic ethic: it reminds audiences that character is tested precisely when conditions invite the opposite. From here, the idea unfolds into a long tradition that treats restraint not as weakness, but as power.
A Tradition of Nonviolent Elevation
Historically, calls to rise above insult echo strategies of moral suasion. Martin Luther King Jr.’s Strength to Love (1963) insists that “hate cannot drive out hate,” locating transformative force in disciplined love. Earlier, Gandhi’s satyagraha channeled suffering into political leverage without dehumanizing the adversary, while Nelson Mandela’s inaugural stance in 1994 made reconciliation a path to shared nationhood. These examples do not romanticize passivity; rather, they reveal how moral clarity can widen a movement’s legitimacy. Thus, Obama’s line sits within a lineage where principled restraint becomes catalytic. Having situated the phrase in history, we can now see how it also functions as a sophisticated rhetorical move.
Rhetoric as Moral Strategy
Aristotle’s Rhetoric holds that ethos—perceived character—is the most persuasive appeal. “Going high” builds ethos by refusing ad hominem combat, framing the conflict around standards instead of slurs. Although negativity often dominates attention (Baumeister et al., Review of General Psychology, 2001), strategic restraint can reset the frame so that substance, not spectacle, commands the floor. Contemporary fieldwork backs this tone: deep-canvassing research shows that respectful, nonjudgmental dialogue can durably shift views (Broockman and Kalla, Science, 2016). In this light, the line is not only an ethical injunction; it is a practical method to expand audiences, stabilize coalitions, and convert momentary outrage into durable trust.
The Psychology of Self-Regulation
At a deeper level, the phrase relies on emotion regulation. Cognitive reappraisal—rethinking a provocation before reacting—reduces anger and improves social outcomes (Gross, 1998; Gross and John, 2003). Viktor Frankl’s insight that freedom lives in “the space between stimulus and response” (Man’s Search for Meaning, 1946) captures the same interval that “go high” asks us to protect. Even classic self-control work, like Mischel’s delay-of-gratification studies (1972), suggests that deferring immediate retaliation can produce better long-term results. In groups, this discipline becomes contagious: one person’s calm narrows the range of acceptable aggression, allowing norms to tilt toward civility. With the psychological scaffolding in place, we can translate the principle into concrete practices.
A Practical Playbook for the High Road
In practice, the approach looks methodical. First, pause and name the value at stake (truth, fairness, dignity), then pivot to verifiable facts or solutions. Second, replace personal attacks with specific behaviors and impacts. Third, elevate credible voices—data, affected stakeholders, or independent validators—to shift attention from theater to testimony. Fourth, in digital spaces, resist quote-tweet dunking; craft standalone messages that model tone and context. For example, when smeared, a leader can restate the record, invite transparent scrutiny, and spotlight the community affected by the issue. This sequence keeps the focus on outcomes rather than insults. Yet, a crucial caveat follows: elevation is not evasion.
High Doesn’t Mean Passive
Crucially, “going high” does not forbid firm boundaries or accountability. John Lewis’s call for “good trouble” framed nonviolent confrontation as morally urgent action; it refused humiliation without surrendering pressure. Likewise, survivors in the #MeToo movement spoke plainly about harm while centering systemic remedies over retaliatory spectacle. The distinction is sharp: civility is not silence, and compassion does not preclude consequences. Going high rejects dehumanization, not justice. It channels grievance into processes—investigation, oversight, lawful protest—that can withstand scrutiny. With safeguards drawn, the ethic extends beyond electoral arenas into everyday life.
Beyond Politics: Everyday Conflict
In schools, workplaces, and families, the high road aligns with conflict-resolution best practices: separate people from the problem, focus on interests, and craft options that meet underlying needs (Fisher and Ury, Getting to Yes, 1981). Instead of mirroring disrespect, one acknowledges emotion, clarifies goals, and proposes next steps. Over time, this habit changes incentives; when escalation no longer earns attention or concessions, it withers. Thus, the phrase’s durability comes from its dual nature: it is a moral stance that also happens to work. And because it works, it becomes easier to choose again—especially when others go low.