Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Ask Joe: Going upstream

Ask Joe: Going upstream

Dear Joe,

I enjoy reading your posts. They make me feel good and I get some good insights. But it’s hard to believe that the things you propose will actually work or make things better. I don’t mean to be rude, but I think it’s worth saying.


Skeptical

Hey Skeptical,

I love this! Thanks for speaking your truth! This is how real dialogue begins; and with real dialogue, comes the possibility for real, lasting solutions. I see it the same way: on their own, the perspectives and solutions I offer will not necessarily solve our societal problems. But what I also truly believe is that, no matter how many millions of dollars and years we invest in solutions to our personal and cultural problems, none of them will actually be successfully implemented if we don’t also include these skills and strategies of the heart.

Identifying the root cause of any problem makes it easier to establish concrete and targeted strategies to mitigate it. “There comes a point where we need to stop just pulling people out of the river. We need to go upstream and find out why they’re falling in,” advised South African theologian and civil rights activist Bishop Desmond Tutu.

The fundamental causes of our current dilemma won’t be found or solved in only numbers and statistics. If that were the case, we would have already solved them. Before we can begin to course-correct ourselves, we must address two underlying core reasons for our inability to realize the emergence of new and lasting solutions: Because of the debilitating effects of our chronic personal and collective trauma, our nervous systems keep us in a constant state of fight-flight-freeze, perceiving anything that is different as a threat. This has, over time, shut down our hearts. Until these issues are addressed and resolved, we will continue to lock horns, deluding ourselves that we are actually making progress.

The current global uncertainty and dysregulation have created deeper levels of fear and imbalances in our world system. This increases anxiety, confusion and burn out. We see indicators of this in national health statistics. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control reports that the percentage of Americans suffering from severe depression and despair rose from 36.4 percent in 2020 to 41.5 percent in 2021. Nearly one in five adult Americans (21 percent) experienced mental illness in 2020, according to the U.S. National Alliance for Mental Illness—roughly 52.9 million people, which led to $193.2 billion in lost earnings. Add to that the reality that hate crimes and other acts of violence have been on the rise around the world.

We see acute examples of this chronic, impulsive survival response playing out politically and culturally today. For instance, some of us have taken a “fight” stance and are actively trying to tear down the system, forcing the process of change to happen before it’s ready to shift. We threaten the lives and safety of public servants and their families who hold different views, or we “cancel” those who can’t seem to keep up with us.

Others resort to a “flight” response, running as fast as we can away from the inevitability of progress. Holding onto a way of life in the past that felt safe and trustworthy, we create policies that don’t seem to meet the needs of our time. We ban books from schools and claim the right to believe whatever facts suit us. Other groups of us fall into the reactive response of “freeze”, burying our heads in the sand. Even though we can see the pain and suffering of others, we choose to not get engaged for fear of losing the things that currently bring us safety and security. We see the injustices of our time, but don’t seem to know how to be part of the solution.

Looking around, I think it is safe to say that our current ways of engaging and communicating are not effective enough to successfully address these primal biological, cultural and personal dysregulated impulses of survival—the fight-flight-freeze response—that lead to the breakdown of cooperation, “civil” civic engagement, personal agency and independent, critical thinking.

Therefore, whether we like it or not, we need to cultivate a revised and upgraded way of communicating that fosters trust and collaboration, and lessens the extremes of division, fear and mistrust – an approach that is not just civil or fierce, but a synthesis of both civil and fierce. We must move through the mental constructs that create separation, get back into our hearts and remember who we all are at our best.

That’s where my Fierce Civility Approach (which I’ve referenced many times) comes in. Its integral, human-centered strategies and tools help us cultivate resilience, meeting challenges with compassion, and deescalating tensions before they rise to conflict. For me, being in one’s heart is not some saccharine-sweet greeting card sentiment. It is a strategic way of being, supported by a comprehensive set of skills, that challenges us to embody courage, wisdom and patience in order to artfully and respectfully engage with those who are different from us.

So, Skeptical, I recommend you continue to question – in a healthy, balanced way – any information you receive. Trust your own intellect and wisdom. And perhaps consider that adding the conscious strategy to appeal to the hearts of others may actually increase the effectiveness of your goals and mission.

From the 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

elementary school classroom
Urgent action is needed for our beloved public schools to renew civic life, writes Goodwin.
skynesher/Getty Images

Teach Leveraging in Middle and High School To Promote Democracy

It's all about leverage. You hear this from a lot of people. Thomas Friedman said it years ago in one of his Sunday New York Times columns on foreign policy. He was referring to international relations. In particular, he was talking about bargaining leverage, namely the kind of leverage that is needed to motivate an ally or an opponent to change their course of action, whether it concerns trade, military build-up, or political alignments.

People in business, especially sophisticated big business, talk about leverage all the time. Gary Hamel and C. K. Prahalad wrote a chapter in their famous book, Competing for the Future, that was all about leverage, although the concept of leverage they were talking about was resource leverage, not bargaining leverage.

Keep ReadingShow less
Seattle Votes on Democracy Vouchers Designed To Counteract Wealthy Donors

If approved, the Democracy Voucher program would bring in $4.5 million each year through a property tax.

Road Red Runner/Adobe Stock

Seattle Votes on Democracy Vouchers Designed To Counteract Wealthy Donors

A public funding mechanism for Seattle elections is up for renewal in next week's election.

The Democracy Voucher program was passed 10 years ago. It offers voters four $25 vouchers to use each election cycle for candidates who accept certain fundraising and spending limits. Supporters said it is a model for more inclusive democracy, touting higher turnout, increased participation from more small donors and a more diverse candidate field.

Spencer Olson, spokesperson for the group People Powered Elections Seattle, which supports Proposition 1, said the program helps level the playing field.

"It's really important that people's voices are heard and that candidates can run being supported by their constituents," Olson contended. "Versus just listening to those wealthiest donors, those special interests that have historically been the loudest voices at the table and really dominated what priorities rise to the top."

The voucher is supported by a property tax. Olson and other supporters hope to bring the model statewide. Critics said the program is not big enough to make a difference in elections and has not curbed outside spending. Ballots are due by 8 p.m. Tuesday.

Olson pointed out the vouchers have succeeded in encouraging more diverse participation in local elections.

"The intention of the program was to bring a public financing program to Seattle elections to help empower more candidates -- more diverse candidates, women, renters, people of color -- to have equal access to be able to run, and run competitive elections without having to rely on wealthy donors, special interests," Olson emphasized.

Olson noted because the money comes from a dedicated tax levy, unused vouchers roll over to the next election.

"The goal isn't to create an unlimited pot of money but to be able to provide resources for candidates to run with the community's support," Olson stressed. "But it's not a blank check at the same time."

Eric Tegethoff is a journalist covering the Northwest for Public News Service.

Keep ReadingShow less
Defining The Democracy Movement: Rahmin Sarabi
- YouTube

Defining The Democracy Movement: Rahmin Sarabi

The Fulcrum presents The Path Forward: Defining the Democracy Reform Movement. Scott Warren's interview series engages diverse thought leaders to elevate the conversation about building a thriving and healthy democratic republic that fulfills its potential as a national social and political game-changer. This initiative is the start of focused collaborations and dialogue led by The Bridge Alliance and The Fulcrum teams to help the movement find a path forward.

The latest interview in this series features Rahmin Sarabi, founder and Director of the American Public Trust, an organization dedicated to promoting and implementing deliberative democracy practices, such as citizen assemblies.

Keep ReadingShow less
Why Recognizing the State of Palestine Does Not “Reward Hamas”
An Israeli airstrike hit Deir al-Balah in central Gaza on Jan. 1, 2024.
Majdi Fathi/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Why Recognizing the State of Palestine Does Not “Reward Hamas”

President Donald Trump finally acknowledged there is “real starvation” in Gaza—a reality that has generated momentum among holdout countries to recognize a State of Palestine, as 147 of 193 U.N. members have already done. Trump claims that this impermissibly “rewards Hamas.” Concerns about the optics of “rewarding” a militant group that is not the country’s government should not drive the decision to recognize Palestine as a state or the decision to maintain diplomatic relations with its government.

Countries that have already recognized the State of Palestine point to the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and the fact that the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) forms a defined geographic area with a government and a population—the traditional criteria for statehood. Countries that have not recognized the State of Palestine point to the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) lack of effective control over parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and to the idea that recognition can be used as future diplomatic leverage. But waiting to recognize a state of Palestine until after there is a negotiated agreement between Israel and the PA is an outdated position that amounts to “kicking the can” down an interminable road.

Keep ReadingShow less