Molineaux is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and president/CEO of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
A mentor and teacher commented, “Humans regulate other humans.” This came on the heels of a few days of mild depression, where I chose to numb out and turn off the world; I was alone and without accountability to others. I had moved from respite to wallowing, and these few words called me back to my normally determined self. The idea that “humans regulate other humans” registered for me on several levels: mental, emotional and physical.
First, while I was numbing out, I watched a documentary on cults. Research has documented that we are most at risk of being radicalized into extremism or cults when we lose our sense of self; this is often preceded by feeling lonely, depressed, powerless and lacking a sense of meaning. Into this void of identity steps someone who seeks to exploit others in their most vulnerable moments. Only other people can intercede, offering hope of a better future and a sense of belonging. “Humans regulate other humans” hit this squarely. Unfortunately friends and loved ones are often ill equipped to offer connection, support, sympathy or understanding. Instead, offering rejection and ridicule which only serves to drive our loved ones further into the arms of the exploiters.
Second, our human bodies are neurologically wired for connection to each other and nature. Walking in the forest or on the beach offers me a sense of wonder and connection to something greater than myself. Scientifically, the fewer connections we have, the sooner we die. When we are alone, our thoughts recycle and with each cycle, our thinking often becomes more perverted due to lack of community sense-making. Mentally and emotionally, we are our strongest in the arms of a healthy community.
Third, when we are in a community, cultural norms ensure the survival of the community. They regulate how we live together for the collective’s sake, not the individual. In the United States, we enshrined this in our Constitution and subsequent rule of law. This is the cultural norm we share, above all others. Or at least, we used to. Humans regulate other humans, right?
Today, competing groups of citizens are claiming the rule of law means different things to them. One group claims the rule of law for all people, challenging inequities and abuse of power. Another group claims rule of law has been corrupted by the ruling class, and it is up to citizens to set it right. I agree with both claims. Corruption is rampant and the rule of law must be challenged for its failures to treat all people equally.
Here is our catch-22 in all its glory. We haven’t yet imagined a set of cultural and social norms that is truly inclusive of our rich diversity. So we judge harshly and fight about cultural norms, trying to force others into what is most comfortable for us. And as we focus on the fight, we turn off our imagination, just when we need it most.
The pandemic has radically changed our sense of safety in the world, as has our political climate, extreme weather conditions and social unrest. Everything we thought was predictable is being stripped away so we can create anew. It can be exhilarating instead of terrifying if our imagination is not stifled by the harshness of the fight around us.
A close friend quipped to me recently, “I’m so tired of being resilient.” As we spent more time together, I found her assigning intent to others for actions she found objectionable. “How can they be so gullible?” or “They are just followers, not able to think for themselves,” she would state. When I offered other possible interpretations, she took exception that I was “making excuses for them.” I had a choice to make. I had more knowledge of intentions due to the diversity of my friends group and work life. But the norms of our relationship has always been to avoid conflict, and that was the direction we were heading.
I chose to stop offering alternative explanations that challenged her “knowing.” Should I have? Was I really being helpful by avoiding the discomfort of our times? Like many of us, she is exhausted by our social upheaval and the implications on her life. I chose not to add more uncertainty or hardship. I made the best decision based on norms and compassion, but wish I had found a way to respond that didn’t require one of us shutting down part of who we are.
We’ve been through a lot in the last few years. Like our ancestors who endured the pandemic 100 years ago, two world wars, a financial crisis and extreme weather, we will survive. And out of our trials, we will find a social cohesion that transcends our troubles and is the best we can imagine for ourselves. Let’s start with compassion, kindness and imagining a better future that allows us the freedom to be who we are, within our community.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio speaks with U.S. President Donald Trump during a Cabinet meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House on May 27, 2026 in Washington, D.C. Trump met with his Cabinet days after saying a peace deal with Iran was“ largely negotiated” amid expectations around the re-opening the Strait of Hormuz.
The worst deal in the history of deals
As a former Republican, sometimes it’s fun to look back on the things we — I was part of a “we” at one time — criticized Democrats for, and not all that long ago.
Remember, if you will, when Republicans condemned former President Bill Clinton for pardoning his brother and his corrupt donor friend Marc Rich?
Or, remember when Republicans wagged their fingers at former President Barack Obama’s golf outings? Or his executive orders? Or his Syrian “red line”?
Or all the times Republicans went after former President Joe Biden’s gaffes?
While those criticisms may have been justified at the time, they look patently ridiculous next to our current president’s cartoonish and downright dangerous offenses.
Offenses like pardoning Jan. 6 insurrectionists — nearly 100 of whom have gone on to be arrested for, charged with, or convicted of crimes separate from the events of that day.
Or wreaking havoc on the global economy by instituting reckless tariffs on friends, neighbors, and enemies alike?
Or taking a proverbial sledge hammer to countless government agencies that have put every American in danger, whether on airplanes, in hospitals, at job sites, or in natural disasters.
That’s just a few, but nothing looks worse next to his predecessors than Donald Trump’s supposed Iran deal, at least as it’s outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding, the details of which Trump was loath to share.
And for good reason — they are shockingly bad and humiliating for the U.S.
I remember Obama’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA from 2015 very well. I, along with many Republicans as well as a cadre of foreign policy experts, criticized that deal for its obvious and problematic concessions to a very bad actor who we’ve long known could not be trusted. But trust was what we gave the Iranian regime, as well as sudden access to a boatload of cash — $100 billion, to be exact.
All of Obama’s provisions were temporary, which would allow Iran to restart enriching uranium upon their sunset; the deal didn’t address Iran’s ballistic missiles, or its funding of terrorist proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas; the supposed “anytime, anywhere” inspections came with a 24-day delay, if Iran so chose, giving them ample time to hide any suspect materials; and it didn’t require any congressional authority.
In short, I’d argue it wasn’t a great deal. But as bad as it was, it looks like the Magna Carta next to Trump’s.
Trump’s deal would give Iran immediate sanction relief and access to $300 billion, presumably to use to fund terror proxies; it doesn’t secure any upfront limits on uranium enrichment or missile development; it allows Iran to charge for safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz in the future; and it calls for Israel to stop its attacks on Hezbollah, another win for Iran.
Neither Americans nor the Middle East are safer than we were 100-plus days ago when Trump decided to pursue this folly. And in fact, our economy is weaker for it. But Iran is unquestionably stronger and more emboldened.
They’ve seen Trump’s weakness, unseriousness, and frighteningly limited appreciation for history. They’ve seen him retreat on most of his core threats to the regime, from bombing their cultural sites to ending a civilization overnight. And they’ve taken notice as he’s abandoned the promises that were supposedly central to his justification for war in the first place — regime change, liberating the Iranian people, and removing Iran’s nuclear materials.
What a waste of blood and treasure, not to mention American might and power, only so that our enemies can watch us limp desperately toward a conclusion that’s being described — by the right — as “unthinkable,” “appeasement,” and “the worst foreign policy blunder in decades.”
S.E. Cupp is the host of "S.E. Cupp Unfiltered" on CNN.