Derek Wittner lives in Kennebunkport.

“Let Them” is a currently popular philosophy of life whose proponent, Mel Robbins, offers some very sound advice. At its core, she advocates personal restraint, or refraining from attempting to control others. By accepting “them,” while taking responsibility for your own
behavior, you can reduce stress, frustration and anger.

However useful this tool, it is subject to misinterpretation. It can be equated with passivity, a notion Robbins rejects. When confronted with abusive or harmful behavior, one cannot “let them” carry on. At that point, resistance designed to change that behavior, or alter the circumstances to extricate one from its effect, becomes a necessity, sometimes even an existential imperative.

Distinguishing situations in which one can “let them” be them in order to preserve one’s well-being, from those when resistance is called for to maintain one’s well-being, can be a tricky exercise.

On a personal level, detaching oneself from the choices others make can help to preserve one’s sanity. Whether it is lifestyles, taste in clothes or wallpaper, letting go of attempts to alter the decisions of others is a healthy detachment.

If, on the other hand, those choices of others in any way threaten one’s safety or wellness, resistance can be an existential necessity. But, how does one make these decisions of detachment versus resistance in a broader context?

In the political arena, unleashed passions and emotions can lead to unhealthy anger and frustration, which can, in turn, lead to feelings of helplessness and despair. In Robbins’
construct, we ought to acknowledge that we probably cannot change the behavior of those
with whom we disagree, but we are not required to accept its negative effect (however
subjective) on us.

In fact, resistance to perceived threats can preserve one’s mental health and avoid feelings of helplessness and despair. So, how does this play out in practical terms? Obviously, the first place to begin is to register resistance at the polls.

Vote for people who represent your interests and perceptions in the hope of removing others from office without attempting to change their views. This accomplishes much of what, I believe, Robbins would endorse to preserve one’s mental health.

But, you respond, voting is a relatively infrequent opportunity to assert one’s opposition, and so it is. This suggests that other activities, pursued in the intervening periods of time, can serve to resist, rather than detach, from everyday affronts to one’s values.

Finding like-minded people can mobilize the forming of a community that affirms one’s own positive feelings and counters despair. Attending lectures that educate, reading about the issues that concern you, writing to friends or using public platforms to express yourself or keeping a journal of your thoughts and impressions and, yes, participating in peaceful demonstrations that advance your views, all these offer a healthy menu for your own mental health.

It’s a “Let Me” recipe that complements and reconciles with the “Let Them” credo. It also serves the larger interests of a democratic society where conflicting voices, which respect contrary views and outcomes, are at its essence.