Rep. Eric Swalwell, a Democrat from California, has thrown down a gauntlet in the fight over congressional redistricting, openly rejecting the once-cherished ideal of rising above petty political brawls. His sharp words signal a shift toward raw combat in a battle that could reshape political power across state lines.

According to Fox News, Swalwell dismissed Michelle Obama’s well-known “when they go low, we go high” philosophy during a recent appearance on CNN Newsroom. He bluntly declared, “When they go low, we’re going to bury them below the Capitol,” framing this aggressive stance as a necessary defense of democracy itself.

Swalwell’s fiery rhetoric comes amid a heated clash over redistricting maps, particularly as California Democrats push back against what he calls a “grab for power” by Texas Republicans under Donald Trump’s influence. He argues this GOP maneuver aims to tilt upcoming midterm elections, leaving Democrats no choice but to respond with equal force to shield vulnerable communities.

Redistricting as a Political Weapon

California’s response, led by Gov. Gavin Newsom, involves a bold plan to redraw congressional lines mid-decade, targeting five Republican-held seats to counter similar moves in Texas. This initiative, however, clashes with the state constitution, which demands nonpartisan redistricting through an independent commission.

Newsom and his allies are now racing to secure voter approval through a special election later this year to sidestep these constitutional limits. Their goal is clear: match the GOP’s hardball tactics with a map that shifts the balance of power back toward Democrats.

Swalwell justifies this approach by pointing to past Democratic hesitancy, saying, “We have paid the price for our weakness in the past, and we can’t be so weak next time we have power.” His words reveal a party ready to ditch restraint for results, even if it means rewriting the rules.

Abandoning the High Road

The congressman’s stance reflects a broader trend among some Democrats who seem to have shelved the old mantra of moral superiority in favor of bare-knuckle politics. Even Michelle Obama herself recalibrated the phrase in a 2020 DNC speech, urging a fiercer resistance against hatred while still seeking national unity.

Obama clarified, “Going high means taking the harder path. It means scraping and clawing our way to that mountain top,” suggesting that standing firm doesn’t always mean playing nice. Her updated view hints at a pragmatic toughness that Swalwell appears to have taken to heart, albeit with a harsher edge.

Yet, this pivot to combative language raises questions about whether such rhetoric fuels division rather than mending it. Swalwell’s vow to “bury” opponents, while perhaps metaphorical, risks inflaming tensions in an already polarized landscape, where words can easily be weaponized.

A Democracy Under Strain

Swalwell’s comments also underscore a deeper frustration with the state of democratic norms, as he points to the militarization of Washington, D.C., as evidence of escalating stakes. He frames the redistricting fight as not just political maneuvering but a survival test for the nation’s core principles.

His insistence on matching Republican tactics with Democratic counterstrikes, as seen in Newsom’s legal and electoral pushback, suggests a belief that playing by old rules is no longer viable. The message is stark: adapt or be overrun by those willing to bend the system to their will.

Critics might argue this tit-for-tat approach erodes trust in institutions, turning redistricting into a partisan chess game rather than a process grounded in fairness. When both sides prioritize victory over principle, the very democracy Swalwell claims to protect could become collateral damage.

The Cost of Combat Politics

In the end, Swalwell’s rejection of a softer approach may resonate with those who feel the left has been outmaneuvered by a more ruthless opposition. But it also begs the question of where this cycle of retaliation stops, or if it can stop at all.

California’s gambit to redraw maps, if successful, might balance the scales temporarily, yet it could just as easily provoke further escalation from the other side. The real test will be whether this strategy defends the vulnerable, as Swalwell claims, or merely deepens the trenches of partisan warfare.

For now, the battle lines are drawn, and the high road seems a distant memory in a fight that feels more like a street brawl than a debate. If democracy is the prize, both sides might do well to remember that winning at any cost can leave little worth salvaging.