Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Ask Joe: Cultivating our own resilience

Ask Joe: Cultivating our own resilience

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.

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