Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Crowd of people walking on a street.

Andy Andrews//Getty Images

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Biologist and author Paul Ehrlich, the most influential Chicken Little of the last century, died at the age of 93 this week. His 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” launched decades of institutional panic in government, entertainment and journalism.

Ehrlich’s core neo-Malthusian argument was that overpopulation would exhaust the supply of food and natural resources, leading to a cascade of catastrophes around the world. “The Population Bomb” opens with a bold prediction, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

People clear rubble in a house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. The United States and Israel continued their joint attack on Iran that began on February 28. Iran retaliated by firing waves of missiles and drones at Israel, and targeting U.S. allies in the region.

Getty Images, Majid Saeedi

Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

Most of what we have heard from the administration as it pertains to the Iran War is swagger and bro-talk. A few days into the war, the White House released a social media video that combined footage of the bombardment with clips from video games. Not long after, it released a second video, titled “Justice the American Way,” that mixed images of the U.S. military with scenes from movies like Gladiator and Top Gun Maverick.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, War Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted of “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” “They are toast, and they know it,” he said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight... we are punching them while they’re down.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A student in uniform walking through a campus.

A Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet walks through campus November 7, 2003 in Princeton, New Jersey.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

Hegseth is Dumbing Down the Military (on Purpose)

One day before the United States began an ill-defined and illegal war of indefinite length with Iran, Pete Hegseth angrily attacked a different enemy: the Ivy League. The Secretary of War denounced Ivy League universities as "woke breeding grounds of toxic indoctrination” and then eliminated long-standing college fellowship programs with more than a dozen elite colleges, which had historically served as a pipeline for service members to the upper ranks of military leadership. Of the schools now on Hegseth’s "no-fly list," four sit in the top ten of the World’s Top Universities for 2026. So, why does the Secretary of War not want his armed forces to have the best education available? Because he wants a military without a brain.

For a guy obsessed with being the strongest and most lethal force in the world, cutting access to world-class schools is a bizarre gambit. It does reveal Hegseth doesn’t consider intelligence a factor–let alone an asset–in strength or lethality. That tracks. Hegseth alleges the Ivies infect officers with “globalist and radical ideologies that do not improve our fighting ranks…” God forbid the tip of the sword of our foreign policy has knowledge of international cooperation and global interconnectedness. The Ivy League has its own issues, but the Pentagon’s claim that they "fail to deliver rigorous education grounded in realism” is almost laughable. I’m a veteran Lieutenant Commander with two Ivy League degrees, both paid for with military tuition assistance, and I promise: it was rigorous. Meanwhile, are Hegseth’s performative politics grounded in reality? Attacking Harvard on social media the eve of initiating a new war with a foreign adversary is disgraceful, and even delusional.

Keep ReadingShow less
Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?
Person working at a desk with a laptop and books.

Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?

Draft an important email without using AI. Write it from scratch — no suggestions, no autocomplete, and no prompt to ChatGPT to compose or revise the email.

Now ask yourself: Did it feel slower? Harder? Slightly uncomfortable?

Keep ReadingShow less