Don’t Make It Personal
Someone said it to me again last week. Try not to make it so personal.
They meant it kindly. They meant: you’ll be easier to be around if you can hold this at arm’s length. And I understand the impulse — nobody wants to be the person who turns dinner into a referendum. For a long time I tried to be smaller about it. I practiced the calm voice. I let things go.
I’ve stopped, because the premise is wrong. Politics isn’t personal because I’m too sensitive to keep it at a distance. It’s personal because it already decided how close it gets to stand to me.
Every system is a ledger. Strip away the language — the bills, the platforms, the talking points — and underneath is a running tally of whose life is worth protecting and whose is an acceptable cost. Who gets believed when they say what happened to them. Who gets a caseworker who calls back. Who gets counted, and who gets rounded down. You can dress it in policy, but the arithmetic is always about people. It is always about which people.
I know this the way you know a thing in your body before you can argue it. Years ago, someone whose job was to protect people came into a room I was in — not to protect me, but to use me. The very emblem our society hands certain people as a promise of safety was right there, off duty, while its owner did the opposite of what it stands for. No one had to explain it to me. The message was already complete. That is not a feeling. That is a design — a decision made long before that night about whose safety that promise is actually for.
Here is what I wish more people understood: neutrality is not the absence of a position. It is a position you can only afford if the ledger already counts you. If the system was built to see you, you get to call it “just politics” — a spectator sport, a thing you can mute. If it wasn’t, then every election, every rule, every budget line is a sentence being read aloud about whether you get to be safe. The people who tell you not to make it personal are usually the people for whom it never had to be.
I don’t say that to make anyone feel guilty for the luxury of distance. I say it because I want us to be honest about what we are actually arguing over. When we fight about policy, we are almost never fighting about spreadsheets. We are fighting about worth. About whether a survivor’s account is evidence or exaggeration. About whether a child’s safety is a right or a line item. About whether the word human comes with conditions.
And here is the part that took me the longest to learn. Refusing to make it personal does not make you fair. It makes you quiet. Quiet is not neutral. Quiet is a vote for whoever the ledger already favors. The status quo doesn’t need your enthusiasm — it only needs your silence, and it will happily accept I don’t really do politics as a yes.
So no. I won’t be holding this at arm’s length.
I make it personal on purpose now — not because I’ve lost my composure, but because I’ve found my aim. Making it personal is how I keep the actual human being in the frame when the conversation wants to shrink her down to a category. It’s how I refuse to let “policy” become the place where people go to disappear. When I say a name, tell a story, insist on the specific weight of one life, I am doing the one thing a ledger cannot survive: I am making the arithmetic look back at me.
You don’t have to burn anything down to do this. You just have to stop pretending the distance was ever real. The politics were always personal. The only question was whether you were one of the people who got to forget it.
I never got to forget. And lately, I’ve stopped wishing I could.
—
Bek is a human-trafficking survivor, memoirist, and peer-support advocate based in Denver, Colorado. Her memoir Misaligned (2027) traces how a survivor comes to recognize — at thirty — what had happened to her, and turns that recognition toward prevention and alignment. She writes on survivor advocacy, trafficking prevention, and human rights at bekconnects.com and on Substack.
