Knowing Which “Hill to Die On”

“Idealists, in order to change the systems in which they exist, must usually remain in that system.”

Senator Bernie Sanders has recently taken a stand in favor of the thousands of Amazon warehouse workers in Bessemer, Alabama, who are set to vote on forming the first Amazon union in the United States. This is not the first time Senator Sanders has fought for progressive issues such as these; he ran two popular presidential campaigns focused, in large part, on raising the average American’s standard of living. After his defeat in those two races, it seemed that the Democratic Party had little appetite for his progressivism. Yet, Senator Sanders endorsed both former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and then-candidate Joe Biden anyway, despite being diametrically opposed to many of their favored policies. Rather than loudly bickering about his defeat in the Democratic Party structure, he continued to work within it.

Now, here he is in 2021, with more Democrats supporting his policies and with a much louder voice on Capitol Hill. While many have written about these events before, I think the actions of Senator Sanders serve as a perfect illustration of a principle colloquialized as “knowing which hill to die on.”

In contrast to Senator Sanders, look across the aisle to Congressman Justin Amash. In May of 2019, Congressman Amash decided that his moral and political principles compelled him to be the first Republican to support a potential impeachment of then-President Donald Trump. At the time, this seemed to be a commendable event, a politician with a moral compass standing up for what he saw as right. However, “Russiagate” was not what the media made it out to be, especially compared to other arguably more troubling aspects of President Trump’s tenure. The American people, especially those on the Right, would have been better served by Congressman Amash’s moral position at other points. In short, the Congressman chose the wrong hill on which to die.