Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Ask Joe: Why should I be civil if others don’t bother?

Ask Joe: Why should I be civil if others don’t bother?

Hi Joe,

I’m trying really hard to stay peaceful but it’s not working. You talk about civility, but that’s not going to work with people who are intent on tearing things down. So many people in power are purposely trying to wreck our institutions. How is civility going to help?


Done

Hey, Done.

You are expressing something I hear so often. It’s hard to stay peaceful when our default response to most things is to fight and attack – anywhere from militia groups threatening violence against people who are simply doing their jobs to canceling someone online without investigating all the facts of a situation. We’re disempowering one another by responding in our default mode, and using an old notion of civility won’t make this go away.

The work of Fierce Civility is to stand strong and be fierce in our commitment to not give in to the current trends of lack of civility. And yes, Done, at the moment, that requires all of our physical, emotional, mental and spiritual resolve. In these times, it demands all our strength to not be drawn into fighting and volatility.

Caught up in this reactive way of defending what we believe in, we’re overlooking that the true enemy of our time is lack of civility. We can no longer debate challenging topics, or very rarely advocate for policy change in a collaborative way. The issues we’re discussing are the same issues we have always been discussing; what has changed is how we’re doing it. So, if we want to see a way forward, we need to focus on how we’re approaching one another; not just on what we want to say.

We need upgraded skills to fiercely and civilly challenge bullying, cheating, scapegoating and canceling our opponents. We need to resist apathy, cynicism, extreme self-interest and hopelessness. Until we confront and neutralize the lack of civility or manipulation, we will most likely remain stuck in our current rut of debilitating gridlock.

Having lived and worked in many countries around the world, including conflict zones, I know many people who face this dilemma every day. Even some communities and neighborhoods in the United States are confronted with this reality. In these places, respect, dignity, community and basic human needs are not taken for granted. In the most extreme circumstances, this can mean a day that doesn’t include a bomb dropping on their neighborhood is considered a good day. They know that the ability to hold on to their highest values of compassion, kindness and peace in the face of adversity is a choice. And one that doesn’t always come easy. They have cultivated the resilience, fortitude and stamina to maintain this level of civility – for themselves, their children and for their community.

Here in the United States – in the media, at social gatherings, in intellectual circles, even in government – we are seeing escalations of tensions, speech and acts of violence that some compare in its severity to the Civil War. Perhaps it’s time that more Americans join the rest of the world and not take our liberties and comforts for granted. Instead, while the issues we fight for are important, a higher priority could be to unite with those who share a common commitment to civility and rule of law and build alliances in new, and potentially surprising, places. Alliances that transcend age, race, gender, title, geography, academic stature, financial status, political affiliation and more.

Increasingly, we see that using reason or data points to reach those on the extremes of our political polarization isn’t effective. But as a united front, our fierceness to practice civility would strengthen our individual and collective resilience, resourcefulness, self-care and safety. It will build and deepen our relationships with our allies.

These times are calling on us to remember who we are at our best. And to appeal from the heart to encourage others to do the same. Legendary civil rights advocate Grace Lee Boggs said: “A movement begins when the oppressed begin seeing themselves as pioneers in creating new, more human relations and thus advancing the evolution of the human race. Confident of their own humanity, movement builders are able to recognize the humanity in others, including their opponents, and therefore the potential within them for redemption.”

I am seeing so many who are confronted with this reality right now and are feeling compelled to take action in a new way. While my words may not rid you of your frustration, Done, I hope it brings some sense of peace and clarity. For your own wellbeing and for us all.

In other words, you are not alone.

Joe

Learn more about Joe Weston and his work here. Make sure to c heck out Joe’s bestselling book Fierce Civility: Transforming our Global Culture from Polarization to Lasting Peace, published March 2023.

To Ask Joe, please submit questions to: AskJoe@Fulcrum.us.

Read More

news app
New platforms help overcome biased news reporting
Tero Vesalainen/Getty Images

The Selective Sanctity of Death: When Empathy Depends on Skin Color

Rampant calls to avoid sharing the video of Charlie Kirk’s death have been swift and emphatic across social media. “We need to keep our souls clean,” journalists plead. “Where are social media’s content moderators?” “How did we get so desensitized?” The moral outrage is palpable; the demands for human dignity urgent and clear.

But as a Black woman who has been forced to witness the constant virality of Black death, I must ask: where was this widespread anger for George Floyd? For Philando Castile? For Daunte Wright? For Tyre Nichols?

Keep ReadingShow less
Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making
Mount Rushmore
Photo by John Bakator on Unsplash

Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making

No one can denounce the New York Yankee fan for boasting that her favorite ballclub has won more World Series championships than any other. At 27 titles, the Bronx Bombers claim more than twice their closest competitor.

No one can question admirers of the late, great Chick Corea, or the equally astonishing Alison Krauss, for their virtually unrivaled Grammy victories. At 27 gold statues, only Beyoncé and Quincy Jones have more in the popular categories.

Keep ReadingShow less
A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

Trump’s mass deportations promise security but deliver economic pain, family separation, and chaos. Here’s why this policy is failing America.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

The Cruel Arithmetic of Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

As summer 2025 winds down, the Trump administration’s deportation machine is operating at full throttle—removing over one million people in six months and fulfilling a campaign promise to launch the “largest deportation operation in American history.” For supporters, this is a victory lap for law and order. For the rest of the lot, it’s a costly illusion—one that trades complexity for spectacle and security for chaos.

Let’s dispense with the fantasy first. The administration insists that mass deportations will save billions, reduce crime, and protect American jobs. But like most political magic tricks, the numbers vanish under scrutiny. The Economic Policy Institute warns that this policy could destroy millions of jobs—not just for immigrants but for U.S.-born workers in sectors like construction, elder care, and child care. That’s not just a fiscal cliff—it is fewer teachers, fewer caregivers, and fewer homes built. It is inflation with a human face. In fact, child care alone could shrink by over 15%, leaving working parents stranded and employers scrambling.

Meanwhile, the Peterson Institute projects a drop in GDP and employment, while the Penn Wharton School’s Budget Model estimates that deporting unauthorized workers over a decade would slash Social Security revenue and inflate deficits by nearly $900 billion. That’s not a typo. It’s a fiscal cliff dressed up as border security.

And then there’s food. Deporting farmworkers doesn’t just leave fields fallow—it drives up prices. Analysts predict a 10% spike in food costs, compounding inflation and squeezing families already living paycheck to paycheck. In California, where immigrant renters are disproportionately affected, eviction rates are climbing. The Urban Institute warns that deportations are deepening the housing crisis by gutting the construction workforce. So much for protecting American livelihoods.

But the real cost isn’t measured in dollars. It’s measured in broken families, empty classrooms, and quiet despair. The administration has deployed 10,000 armed service members to the border and ramped up “self-deportation” tactics—policies so harsh they force people to leave voluntarily. The result: Children skipping meals because their parents fear applying for food assistance; Cancer patients deported mid-treatment; and LGBTQ+ youth losing access to mental health care. The Human Rights Watch calls it a “crueler world for immigrants.” That’s putting it mildly.

This isn’t targeted enforcement. It’s a dragnet. Green card holders, long-term residents, and asylum seekers are swept up alongside undocumented workers. Viral videos show ICE raids at schools, hospitals, and churches. Lawsuits are piling up. And the chilling effect is real: immigrant communities are retreating from public life, afraid to report crimes or seek help. That’s not safety. That’s silence. Legal scholars warn that the administration’s tactics—raids at schools, churches, and hospitals—may violate Fourth Amendment protections and due process norms.

Even the administration’s security claims are shaky. Yes, border crossings are down—by about 60%, thanks to policies like “Remain in Mexico.” But deportation numbers haven’t met the promised scale. The Migration Policy Institute notes that monthly averages hover around 14,500, far below the millions touted. And the root causes of undocumented immigration—like visa overstays, which account for 60% of cases—remain untouched.

Crime reduction? Also murky. FBI data shows declines in some areas, but experts attribute this more to economic trends than immigration enforcement. In fact, fear in immigrant communities may be making things worse. When people won’t talk to the police, crimes go unreported. That’s not justice. That’s dysfunction.

Public opinion is catching up. In February, 59% of Americans supported mass deportations. By July, that number had cratered. Gallup reports a 25-point drop in favor of immigration cuts. The Pew Research Center finds that 75% of Democrats—and a growing number of independents—think the policy goes too far. Even Trump-friendly voices like Joe Rogan are balking, calling raids on “construction workers and gardeners” a betrayal of common sense.

On social media, the backlash is swift. Users on X (formerly Twitter) call the policy “ineffective,” “manipulative,” and “theater.” And they’re not wrong. This isn’t about solving immigration. It’s about staging a show—one where fear plays the villain and facts are the understudy.

The White House insists this is what voters wanted. But a narrow electoral win isn’t a blank check for policies that harm the economy and fray the social fabric. Alternatives exist: Targeted enforcement focused on violent offenders; visa reform to address overstays; and legal pathways to fill labor gaps. These aren’t radical ideas—they’re pragmatic ones. And they don’t require tearing families apart to work.

Trump’s deportation blitz is a mirage. It promises safety but delivers instability. It claims to protect jobs but undermines the very sectors that keep the country running. It speaks the language of law and order but acts with the recklessness of a demolition crew. Alternatives exist—and they work. Cities that focus on community policing and legal pathways report higher public safety and stronger economies. Reform doesn’t require cruelty. It requires courage.

Keep ReadingShow less
Multi-colored speech bubbles overlapping.

Stanford’s Strengthening Democracy Challenge shows a key way to reduce political violence: reveal that most Americans reject it.

Getty Images, MirageC

In the Aftermath of Assassinations, Let’s Show That Americans Overwhelmingly Disapprove of Political Violence

In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination—and the assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman only three months ago—questions inevitably arise about how to reduce the likelihood of similar heinous actions.

Results from arguably the most important study focused on the U.S. context, the Strengthening Democracy Challenge run by Stanford University, point to one straightforward answer: show people that very few in the other party support political violence. This approach has been shown to reduce support for political violence.

Keep ReadingShow less