Today, The Fulcrum is introducing a new biweekly advice column entitled, "Ask Joe."
In the divided political and social worlds we live in, tensions are often high in the workplace, in online conversations, at family gatherings, and even amongst friends.
Whether they rise to conflict, or fester beneath the surface, these tensions can impact you and everyone you know.
The "Ask Joe" column is dedicated to exploring the best ways to transform tensions and bridge divides. Our resident advice columnist, conflict resolution specialist, author, and Fierce Civility Project founder Joe Weston is here to answer your questions in order to resolve tension, polarization, or conflict.
To Ask Joe, please submit questions to: AskJoe@Fulcrum.us.
Let's kick things off with a question about trust in institutions:
Dear Joe,
I have friends who distrust the media, the government and corporations. But for some reason, they believe videos on YouTube or from other individuals and many conspiracy theories. These friends are super smart. Like, genius level IQ. And the depth of research they do far exceeds the time I have to examine and apply my own reasoning.
I have more trust in the media and government, less in corporations. So I believe more of what I hear in my day-to-day life, and spend a lot less time online. How can we discuss current affairs and such, without me feeling stupid and judging them as crazy?
Frustrated and Confused
Hello Frustrated and Confused,
I often hear this from people who are struggling with how to civilly exchange ideas with friends and loved ones. Though there are no quick fixes, certain approaches can help you stay in alignment with your values and, at the same time, find common ground.
Solutions offered by the Fierce Civility approach are simple and, albeit often times challenging to put into practice, they are effective. This pathway is designed to pivot you out of the rigidity that is created from spiraling in the realm of ideas, opinions, judgement, statistics and data, as well as pain, fear and trauma, and back to common-sense, heart-centered shifts in the dynamic.
So, you ask, "How can we discuss current affairs and such…?" Your wording already primes you for the solution. The first pivot is to avoid getting caught up in what you are discussing, and focus more on the how. If you feel that you can never win these conversations with intelligent friends, and that you end up feeling stupid and perceive them as crazy, then shift your focus. Ask yourself, which is more important to you: being right, or preserving the health and integrity of the relationship?
If the relationship is the priority, then come from your heart when speaking, and appeal to their hearts. Take care to help each other stay in your "best selves" and the heart connection that transcends current issues. You may realize something you have in common: You are both trying to navigate the current volatility and anxiety. You may also discover that, at a core level, you are both desiring to alleviate a sense of fear and fulfill a need for safety. From this shared space, recognition, healing and reconciliation can happen.
You may also want to consider how your judgment ("I'm stupid, they're crazy") is getting in the way of your authentic connection with this person whom you care about. Consider the Fierce Civility concept: My truth ≠ the truth. To illustrate: Think back to your eighth birthday. How much of that day can you remember (if at all)? If you asked those who were present on that day what they remember, would they recall the same facts as you? Who's right? Ultimately, the gift of this concept is that we get closest to the truth of any situation when we combine what each one of us remembers and how each of us sees it! Doing this requires that we listen and respond in an open, curious way.
Your situation is a classic example of the polarizing habit that we all have: the need to be right, and, therefore, deciding that others who see things differently must be wrong. When we do this, we forget that the average person has the capacity to perceive and retain only a portion of the data coming at them at any given time. This only becomes a problem when we hold the belief that the portion of what we perceive, believe or retain is the whole story.
What if you both have important information that, when combined, gives a fuller understanding of the situation? What questions would take you deeper into connection, trust, safety and a willingness to hear the other person's viewpoint? What if this combined knowledge could alleviate some of the anxiety and fear of our time for all of us, not exacerbate it?
Consider shifting the emphasis of your inquiry. Instead of focusing on why they are so trusting of social media, get more curious about what has caused them to develop a distrust of the news media, government and corporations. That's a far richer conversation that can lead to them feeling heard and understood; it may also lead you to consider new data. As well, do some of your own internal investigation: Why are you satisfied with what the news media and government tell you? Are you bearing in mind that, like all humans, they can only present a portion of the truth? This will result in an empowered vulnerability and humility that can rekindle the best in both you and your friends, and prevent further disconnection.
These pivots require courage, patience and compassion – for yourself and your friends. As we shift our focus away from the news media and online platforms, and back to one another, we rediscover that the power of the human spirit resides in our capacity to connect authentically, and to do the messy work of human relationships, no matter how smart, crazy or stupid we may be.
Trust your heart,
Joe
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.