Dear Joe,
I’ve been doing bridge-building and depolarization for a long time. I think I’m pretty experienced and knowledgeable about what works and what doesn’t work. You talk a lot about hope and say that we need to appeal to the heart.
While that all sounds good, when I look at the level of animosity and how entrenched people are in what they believe, do you really think that what you suggest would work? With so much advancing with AI (artificial intelligence) and how easy it is to manipulate information, is it really possible at this point to make a difference?
I’d like to believe that there is hope and a way out of this, but I don’t think it will come with being civil and appealing to the heart.
Realistic
Hello Realistic,
I appreciate your honesty, and you make a strong point. I have this discussion with many people, and my response includes me asking, “Is the current fighting, animosity, cynicism and extreme reliance on technology working? At this point, what other choice do we have than appealing to the hearts of those willing to do the work to shift how we are currently treating one another?”
I have seen and experienced with myself and others around the world with whom I’ve worked that where people or opposing groups might have thought there was no way out of dilemmas, new solutions surprisingly emerge that are inclusive, innovative, and sustainable. When we do the challenging work of first regulating our nervous systems so we are not in a reactive state, truly getting into our hearts and meeting people where they are and then giving others a chance to do the same, then unexpected things happen.
I would also offer that just knowing something doesn’t mean that we are actually implementing it. I have heard from others who have read my new book “ Fierce Civility ” or who know my work say to me, “I already know what you are suggesting we do. I don’t see anything new.” And yet I see these same people who say they already know how to approach people with dignity and respect talk about and treat “opposing” groups with cynicism, bitterness, indifference, othering, and self-righteousness – not what I would call qualities of the heart.
Knowing about something doesn’t equate to learning it. We can read a book about flying a plane, but I certainly wouldn't want to get in a plane that is being piloted with no skills behind it! Unfortunately, our data-driven world system is filled with an enormous number of information gatherers who haven’t learned very much. We all know people who should know better—meaning, they’ve gone to all the right workshops, listened to the smartest podcasts, read the bestselling books, earned impressive degrees, and analyzed the current big data; yet, despite their best intentions, they still manage to contribute – either actively or passively – to the polarization and breakdown of civil discourse.
Even with the best of intentions, we may have forgotten that accumulating information (no matter how much) and sharing opinions without making the effort to embody new skills changes very little. And that is what I am advocating for: in a world that is increasingly hostile, bitter and isolated, we need to get beyond our current ideas of what civility is and actually upgrade our capacity to communicate and engage with those who are different. It takes conscious effort to learn new skills and strategies that get us beyond a simple conceptualization of humanity, or settling for “agreeing to disagree.”
The Fierce Civility Approach is designed to take our ideas and aspirations and put them into tangible action. Skills-based learning, an intrinsic part of this approach, is very different from left-brain learning, like memorizing the laws of mathematics or physics. For a data-reliant culture that is programmed to get information quickly, it’s a challenge to slow down, gather information (learn it), then contemplate the data (understand it), and finally begin the longer process of experiencing it in the body, over and over, until it subtly transforms our viewpoints and behaviors.
We’ve done enough research to solve all of our world problems. We have enough proof on a daily basis in newspapers, the media and on the streets that more needs to be done to address the suffering of so many. Yet, for some reason, the facts and evidence are not creating the results we are working so hard to make possible.
In fact, I would say that because of where we are going with technology and AI, because it might be harder for us to distinguish between what is real and what is fake on our devices, because of the growing number of people who are suffering from loneliness and isolation, because of the ways in which the media, social media and the political system are relentlessly wearing us down and stressing us out, we need a stronger commitment to having daily practices of getting out of our heads and into our bodies and into our hearts. By doing so, we come back to our senses and approach challenges with common sense, courage and compassion.
We must make efforts to cultivate our own resilience, as well as truly connect with others from the heart and deepen and strengthen the relationships that empower and nurture us.
This is where I believe our hope resides, Realistic. I may not necessarily have optimism for what is unfolding, but I do have faith in the human spirit and what is possible when we align our thoughts and words with what we actually do.
From my heart,
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.
Have a question for Joe? Send an email to AskJoe@fulcrum.us.
A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.