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
image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.